BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS

New Writ

Ordered,
	That the Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the County constituency of Mid Ulster, in the room of Martin McGuiness, who since his election for the said County constituency has been appointed to the Office of Steward or Bailiff of Her Majesty’s Manor of Northstead in the county of York.—(Sir George Young.)

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

HOME DEPARTMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Female Genital Mutilation

Jane Ellison: What recent steps she has taken to tackle female genital mutilation.

Theresa May: Female genital mutilation is an abhorrent form of child abuse which this Government are committed to eradicating. Across Government we have taken a number of actions, including piloting the declaration against female genital mutilation, issuing guidelines to front-line practitioners and providing funding to support communities to tackle FGM themselves. These actions help raise awareness of the issue, change attitudes, strengthen the legal response and support victims.

Jane Ellison: I thank the Home Secretary for that answer. As she knows, most of the data we use in the UK are based on a 2007 study. The Dutch Government recently issued an up-to-date prevalence study, based on methodology developed at a workshop sponsored by the Home Office. When might we look to doing an up-to-date prevalence study here in the UK?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend raises an important point, and I would like to pay tribute to the work she has done on this issue, which is respected in all parts of the House. We are assessing a funding application for a prevalence study. The Home Office and the NSPCC co-hosted a recent round-table at which prevalence was discussed, and we are considering various ways in which we can collect the data to inform a more targeted
	approach to ending this practice. Indeed, the Department of Health is exploring the collection of FGM data in the NHS, including in the maternity and children’s dataset.

Pamela Nash: One of the best actions we can take to tackle the attitudes that lead to FGM and gender-based violence is to ensure that all our children and young people receive age-appropriate and good-quality sex and relationship education. Has the Home Secretary discussed that with her colleagues in the Department for Education, and will the Government now support compulsory sex and relationship education?

Theresa May: The issue of education is discussed in the inter-ministerial group on violence against women and girls, which I chair. It meets regularly and brings Government Departments across the board, including the Department for Education, around the table. It is correct that education and information are very important aspects of dealing with FGM, which is why I am pleased to say that we have delivered 40,000 leaflets and posters to schools, health services, charities and community groups around the country, raising awareness of this issue.

Stella Creasy: May I associate myself with the Home Secretary’s comments about the work that the hon. Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison) has done on raising awareness of female genital mutilation in the UK? The Home Secretary will be aware of the calls for action to improve awareness of FGM, and to support young people who are facing this threat in coming forward. Given this and her response to my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash), may I press her on the question of the level of violence against women and girls in Britain, and ask whether she will give her direct personal support to the One Billion Rising campaign and the vote in this place on Thursday to make sex and relationship education statutory for both boys and girls—yes or no?

Theresa May: I thank the hon. Lady for her comments about my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea. As I said, the Government take this issue extremely seriously and we look across the board at what Government can do to deal with it. It is about helping communities themselves to eradicate this problem. Everyone in this Chamber will be concerned about the lack of prosecutions, and I am pleased that the Director of Public Prosecutions has issued a new action plan on FGM to the prosecutors, with the hope of getting prosecutions. We must recognise that education of a variety of sorts is important, which is why alerting people at various levels in the public services and in schools, and others, and helping girls to understand the threat themselves, is so important.

UK Immigration (Bulgaria and Romania)

Andrew Bridgen: What steps she has taken to control immigration from Bulgaria and Romania.

Philip Hollobone: What steps she plans to take to control the entry of Romanian and Bulgarian nationals to the UK from 1 January 2014.

John Baron: What estimate she has made of the potential level of immigration from Bulgaria and Romania after the expiry of transitional controls.

James Wharton: What steps she has taken to control immigration from Bulgaria and Romania.

Mark Harper: Speculative projections about future inflows cannot be made with any degree of accuracy and are, therefore, not particularly helpful. That is why the Government are focused on dealing with the abuse of free movement rights and reducing the pull factors for migration, and so I am chairing a cross-Government group of Ministers to examine controls on immigrants’ access to public services and benefits.

Andrew Bridgen: It has been estimated that some 250,000 Romanians and Bulgarians are currently resident in Germany, and an internal paper produced by the German Association of Cities has noted that that level of immigration creates social dangers. Will any lessons be learned from the German experience?

Mark Harper: My hon. Friend is right to say that it is helpful for us to look at the experience of other European countries. We want to make sure that when people look at the access to our benefits and our public services nobody thinks we are a soft touch in this country, and the Government are taking action to ensure that people will not think that.

Philip Hollobone: My constituents think it is madness to open our borders to 29 million people when we have absolutely no idea how many are going to come to this country. Will the Minister at least introduce a new requirement that European Union nationals seeking to reside here for more than three months have to apply for a residency card? Will he insist that the Romanian and Bulgarian Governments share with the Home Office details of any criminal records of those who come to this country?

Mark Harper: My hon. Friend’s first point about a residency card is something I will listen to and take away with me. On his second point, he may be interested to know that the Metropolitan police and the UK Border Agency been working closely together over the past few months on Operation Nexus, and have removed about 200 very serious and high-harm criminals. That has been very effective, and I hope it will be rolled out across the country in due course.

John Baron: Given that the Government cannot produce or are not producing an estimate, and given that the national minimum wage is five to six times higher in this country than it is in Bulgaria or Romania, how confident are the Government that our public services can cope with any surge in immigration, particularly as we got our estimates so badly wrong in 2004?

Mark Harper: My hon. Friend makes a good point. However, it is worth reminding people that even during the whole period of the previous Government, when, as even they have acknowledged, they had no transitional
	controls for eastern European migration and a significant number came here, four fifths of the net migration was from outside the EU. It is therefore worth seeing things in that context. I go back to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) in saying that the Government are looking at how our public services work and how our benefits system works to make sure that we are not a soft touch in this country. I hope that reassures my hon. Friend.

James Wharton: It is, of course, thanks to the Labour party that the UK was the only European economy that did not have transitional controls in 2004. Will the Minister confirm that as of 31 December every European economy will be open to the free movement of labour from Romania and Bulgaria, and not just ours this time?

Mark Harper: My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is worth remembering that eight other European countries, including France and Germany, currently have transitional controls, as we do. They will have to remove those controls at the end of the year, which is partly why making a forecast is so difficult and why the Migration Advisory Committee advised against it.

Keith Vaz: There is a Bulgarian word for the position in which the Government find themselves—oburkvane: confused. The Prime Minister is a champion of enlargement, which means the free movement of people, yet the Home Office was considering putting advertisements in the Romanian and Bulgarian press advising people not to come here. There is a simple way of dealing with this matter. First, by working with the Romanian and Bulgarian Governments to find out the cause for people to move here. Secondly, by commissioning research so that we have proper predictions as to how many people will come here.

Mark Harper: On the first part of the right hon. Gentleman’s question, he has been in this House long enough to know not to believe everything he reads in newspapers when they talk about what the Government might or might not do. He may even occasionally have been the author of some such stories himself. [Interruption.] No, I am not. On his second question about working with our European partners, we will of course work with the Romanian and Bulgarian Governments, as we do on a number of important and serious issues. For example, we work closely with the Bulgarians on combating terrorism. We will continue to take that approach and we will look at ways of making sure that this country is not a soft touch when it comes to benefits and access to public services. The MAC advised against trying to forecast the numbers, because it said that that simply would not be helpful to policy makers.

Stephen McCabe: Is the Minister satisfied that the fines levied on employers who do not pay the minimum wage are sufficient to deter such employers from employing on the cheap the very Bulgarian and Romanian workers his hon. Friends are asking about?

Mark Harper: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. If anyone takes on people who do not have the right to work in the country, we fine them up to £10,000. I will take away the point that he has made. One thing we are
	looking at is the regulation of the labour market in general. A number of bodies are involved—HMRC for the minimum wage, the Gangmasters Licensing Authority and the UK Border Agency. It is sensible to consider whether those organisations are all working as closely together as they should be. That is something that the group I am chairing will indeed be looking at. I hope that is helpful to him.

Andrew Gwynne: But poor housing from rogue landlords, where they sometimes cram 20 to 30 people into some pretty shabby conditions, is also a major problem and a driver of immigration, particularly from places such as Romania, Bulgaria and other eastern European EU states, so will the Government commit to introducing a statutory national register of private landlords so that we can drive up housing standards in the private sector and drive out some of those crummy conditions?

Mark Harper: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. Last Thursday morning, at an unearthly hour, the Minister for Housing and I accompanied UK Border Agency officers and housing officials from the London borough of Ealing on a raid to deal with exactly such landlords with houses in multiple occupation. It was a successful operation and we detained a number of people who had no right to be in the country. Such partnership working between the London borough of Ealing and central Government is working well, and it is the kind of activity that we will continue.

Chris Bryant: I am delighted that the Minister is tackling that one element, which has already been referred to, but last week the Attorney-General admitted that in 2011 and 2012 there was not a single prosecution of those breaching the national minimum wage. Would it not be a good idea, first, to impose the national minimum wage—enforce it properly—so that unscrupulous landlords could not turn people into virtual slaves in this country and, secondly, to double the fine?

Mark Harper: I am not quite sure what landlords have to do with the national minimum wage, but I think I answered the other part of the hon. Gentleman’s question in responding to one of his colleagues. The hon. Gentleman needs to explain why all those problems were singularly not dealt with when Labour was in power. Labour made mistakes on immigration and failed to apologise. Until it does, no one will take it seriously.

David Ruffley: Are the Government considering taking new powers to curb benefit tourism undertaken by Romanians and Bulgarians—welfare tourism that can only add to British public spending, not reduce it?

Mark Harper: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The committee that I am chairing will indeed consider how our benefit rules work. We want to ensure that we offer what we need to under the treaties, but no more. If we think that there is abuse of free movement rights, we will continue, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has already started to do, to work with our European partners to drive out that abuse, which is what the people of this country want.

UK Border Agency

Lindsay Roy: What assessment she has made of the recent performance of the UK Border Agency and the UK Border Force.

Theresa May: The performance of both organisations is improving. Border Force efforts mean waiting times at airports are now considerably better. I am pleased to say that, between July and September last year—an important time for the UK—99% of passengers were cleared within service standards. UKBA is working to ensure that more illegal immigrants leave the UK this year than last, but we recognise that there are some deep-seated problems that need sustained effort. We are driving that effort forward.

Lindsay Roy: I thank the Secretary of State for her answer. I think the message is, “Still could do much better.” My constituent, Lynn Wyllie, has been waiting two and a half years for confirmation of her immigration status. Her children stay in Scotland and both have British passports. Despite her full co-operation, and that of my office team and her lawyer, she has had no response whatever with regard to her status. Her current application ran out on Friday. Will the Secretary of State arrange an urgent review—I am happy to give details—because Lynn is intensely stressed and worried about her situation and her family?

Theresa May: On the hon. Gentleman’s first comment, as I indicated in my answer, there are some issues that still need to be addressed in relation to the operation of the UK Border Agency. I am happy to look into the case that he has raised. If he provides the details, my hon. Friend the Immigration Minister will look into that with care.

Julian Huppert: The Home Secretary will be well aware of many of the long delays, and I, like many Members, have a number of constituents waiting for responses from the UK Border Agency. This is causing great concern for businesses and the universities in Cambridge, as are some of the over-bureaucratic controls that they feel they are being forced to apply on academics and students. Will she come to Cambridge to meet university and business representatives in order to discuss the details of how that is working?

Theresa May: I understand that the Immigration Minister has already agreed to come to Cambridge to meet representatives of the university on the issue. I met representatives of the Russell group and Universities UK when we were developing our policy on ensuring that we can drive out abuse of the student visa system. We have a student visa system that ensures that the brightest and the best students—those who are coming to an institution that is genuinely providing education, to study a genuine degree course or educational course, and are intending to be students and not to use the visa to work—can come to the UK, while we are driving out abuse. I am pleased to say that tens of thousands of people who were coming here or would have come here to work rather than to be students will not do so, as a result of the action that this Government have taken.

Fiona Mactaggart: The Home Secretary was kind enough to write to me after the last Home Office questions to say that she is working on the group of lost cases, but I have a number of current cases of constituents who are losing their jobs because the Home Office has not replied to in-time applications, so they have no papers that they can show their employer and there is no way they can prove their right to work, as a result of which they are being sacked. Will she stand up in this Chamber and say that nobody who has an in-time application and who had permission to work should be sacked because of the Home Office’s inefficiency?

Theresa May: What I say to the hon. Lady is that we are working through and with UKBA to ensure that we can improve the processes that it operates in relation to applications. If she has particular cases that she wishes to raise with Ministers, she is free to do that. It is important that we ensure that, through the work that is developing to deal with the problems that still exist, UKBA is able to provide the efficient service that we all want to see.

Greg Mulholland: Too many UKBA decisions are still wrong and the process is taking far too long, in which case does the Home Secretary not think it extraordinary that, notwithstanding the clear ruling of a judge on 29 November and previous tribunal decisions, UKBA is still seeking to prevent Roseline Akhalu from staying in this country, despite the fact that if she is deported she will die?

Theresa May: I will respond to my hon. Friend in relation to the individual case that he has raised, but he starts off by saying that too many decisions by the UK Border Agency are wrong. One of the problems for UKBA is that very often entry clearance officers take decision on the basis of the information in front of them, which may perfectly well be the right decision on the basis of that information, then further information is provided before an appeal is heard. That is an issue that we need to look at.

Meg Hillier: Further to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), I have many constituents who have submitted an in-time application and have not even received an acknowledgement from the UK Border Agency. When my office chases up some months later, it turns out that they have not even been input into the UKBA computer system. Perhaps the Home Secretary can tell us whether this is an attempt by the Home Office to massage figures about the number of applicants and the speed with which it is dealing with them.

Theresa May: No such attempt is being made in relation to what the hon. Lady says. She will have heard the answer that I gave. I acknowledged that there are problems in some areas of the operation of the UK Border Agency. That is why we are looking at the UK Border Agency, and why work is being done to improve the processes within it to ensure that we have a system that provides an efficient and effective response to those who are applying.

College of Policing

Julian Smith: What assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the College of Policing since its establishment.

Damian Green: The Government have established the College of Policing to protect the public and support the fight against crime by ensuring professionalism in policing. The college is a core element of the police reform agenda. It began providing services on 1 December 2012 and has already begun training the next generation of police leaders.

Julian Smith: With the new college now in place, surely the Association of Chief Police Officers is now well past its sell-by date. It seems to spend more time protecting its members than helping the Government with their reform programme. Should taxpayers still be funding this organisation?

Damian Green: Most of the ACPO business area work has been integrated into the College of Policing. I pay tribute to ACPO’s work in ensuring a smooth transition towards the establishment of the college, which is very important. ACPO is a private limited company; it is not owned or controlled by the Home Office. It is therefore for ACPO itself to determine its future as a company. Home Office grant-in-aid funding to ACPO headquarters ceased at the end of 2012 when the College of Policing was established.

David Hanson: Undercover policing is extremely important. Does the Minister think that it would be improved, and public confidence in it maintained, by investigating the allegations that have been made about the identities of dead children in London being used as passports for police undercover names? Does he agree that improving standards in undercover training is one of the key elements of the College of Policing?

Damian Green: On the right hon. Gentleman’s last point, I absolutely agree. The College of Policing is there precisely so that we can improve professionalism in all areas of policing, and clearly that applies to undercover policing, which is, as he and the House will know, a particularly sensitive area at the moment. On his previous point, if he can be patient for just a few minutes my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is about to say something about that.

Independent Police Complaints Commission (Hillsborough Inquiry)

Steve Rotheram: What financial and logistical support she is offering to the Independent Police Complaints Commission for its inquiry into Hillsborough.

Damian Green: I have committed to ensuring that the IPCC has the resource and powers necessary to investigate the findings of the Hillsborough independent panel thoroughly, transparently and exhaustively. The IPCC is working
	with the Home Office to determine the level of resource it requires and any logistical help that the Department can offer.

Steve Rotheram: Given that the investigation into the Hillsborough disaster will be the biggest and most complex in the IPCC’s history, what assessment has the Minister made of its capability to carry out the job competently? What assurances has he received that give him comfort that the IPCC’s processes will be scrupulous and, importantly, acceptable to the families?

Damian Green: The hon. Gentleman gives many of the more sensitive issues an airing. We have received assurances from Jon Stoddart and from the IPCC that, for example, no officer or investigator employed to work on the investigations will have had any prior connection with the Hillsborough disaster. I have personally checked that those assurances are being met, and I am able to reassure the hon. Gentleman that they are. As he will know, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has promised that the resources will be made available to the IPCC so that it can conduct this investigation as thoroughly as it and, more particularly, the families of the victims of the disaster deserve.

Robert Buckland: There is a real concern that the IPCC is having to deal with a huge number of complaints, some of which are relatively trivial in the great scheme of things. What mechanism will be put in place to ensure that the IPCC can focus its resources on important and significant cases such as the one that has been raised in questions today?

Damian Green: As I said to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram), in the particular instance of the Hillsborough investigation my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has already made that commitment on resources. There is clearly a wider point about the IPCC’s resources and how it operates, and a statement on that will be made very shortly.

CCTV

Luciana Berger: What steps she plans to take to increase the use of CCTV in response to community demand.

Ian Lavery: What steps she plans to take to increase the use of CCTV in response to community demand.

James Brokenshire: The Government support the effective use of CCTV to cut crime and protect the public. It is a matter for local agencies to determine how best to deploy and use CCTV systems to meet local needs.

Luciana Berger: In Liverpool, the City Watch team have used state-of-the-art CCTV to deter crime and antisocial behaviour and to identify and convict those guilty of offences. As a result, according to the UK Statistics Authority, Liverpool is now the second-safest city in the country. Given this success, why does the
	Minister want to make it harder for the police and other local authorities to get CCTV for communities who want and need it?

James Brokenshire: We certainly recognise the important part that CCTV can play in making communities safer, and the hon. Lady has mentioned the City Watch programme in Liverpool. The Government are not seeking to make it harder to use CCTV; rather, we are seeking to put in place steps to ensure that its use is effective and commands the support of the public and, in so doing, that it can continue to carry out its important work.

Ian Lavery: Local communities and local authorities are looking to install yet more CCTV cameras, which make them feel safer, more secure and more assured. Why are the Government, through the bureaucracy involved in accessing CCTV, preventing more cameras from being installed on the country’s streets?

James Brokenshire: I do not accept that more bureaucracy is preventing CCTV cameras from being adopted. Under the previous Government, a centralised control mechanism was put in place, but it did not actually assess whether the CCTV systems were effective or cutting crime. We think that these decisions are better made locally, but we also want to ensure, through a code of practice, that CCTV is proportionate and effective, and delivers what it needs to deliver.

Philip Davies: CCTV provides courts with unbiased evidence; leads to people changing their plea from not guilty to guilty; saves the police and the courts time and money; brings criminals to justice; and proves people’s innocence. The Government should be doing all they can to roll out CCTV as far as possible, but they are not doing so. Why do they not want to roll it out to more local communities?

James Brokenshire: I say to my hon. Friend that the Government support the use of CCTV and that it can be a very important way of bringing criminals to justice. He may wish to speak to his police and crime commissioner, who will hold a new community safety budget, part of which they may wish to apply to support CCTV projects.

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) gesticulating the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) in the direction of the Opposition Benches is a triumph, surely, of optimism over reality.

Rehman Chishti: Medway council is being developed as a regional CCTV hub, helping prevent crime and saving other councils money. What is the Minister’s policy on encouraging the development of CCTV hubs?

James Brokenshire: I recognise my hon. Friend’s point and, equally, how it is possible to pool together resources and systems to make CCTV systems that much more effective. Those are precisely the sorts of approaches that we are seeking to advance through the code of practice, and I am sure that the surveillance camera commissioner will also examine my hon. Friend’s point.

Gang and Youth Violence

Stuart Andrew: What recent steps she has taken to tackle gang and youth violence.

Jeremy Browne: On 27 November, the Government published our “Ending Gang and Youth Violence Report: One Year On”, setting out achievements and further commitments. Over the past year practical support has been provided to 29 local areas. Support for four more areas was announced in December.

Stuart Andrew: My constituent, Lorraine Fraser, has long campaigned against gang violence after tragically losing her son in an unprovoked attack. She has spent considerable time with young people, warning them of the consequences of being involved in gangs. What action is the Department taking to improve such intervention in our schools to tackle gang violence?

Jeremy Browne: I give my sincere commiserations to Lorraine Fraser. It must have been an extremely harrowing ordeal for her. It reminds me of a case in my constituency shortly after I was elected in 2005, when a young man called Lloyd Fouracre was murdered. His brother, Adam, was extremely energetic in promoting safety among young people in schools and elsewhere. I commend the work of the hon. Gentleman’s constituent and of mine. Our work on ending gang and youth violence includes elements of programmes in schools, and I commend that type of work right across the country.

Hazel Blears: A few weeks ago in my constituency, there was an horrific incident when a totally innocent shopkeeper was attacked by an individual wielding a nine-inch kitchen knife. It subsequently transpired that that person had mental health problems. My chief constable tells me that violence is increasingly perpetrated by people with mental health problems. What is the Minister doing with his colleagues in the Department of Health to tackle this increasing danger to people in our communities?

Jeremy Browne: I am very sorry to hear about that appalling case. I again pass my commiserations to everybody involved. We try across Government—with the Department of Health in this case—to ensure that policy is effective in combining all the elements needed to reduce criminality. Although it is no consolation to the family in this case, it might help the House to know that, according to the crime survey for England and Wales, in the year to June 2012 there was a 14% reduction in homicides, a 9% reduction in violent incidents involving knives or sharp instruments, and an 18% reduction in gun crime. It might not be much consolation to victims of crime, but, overall, violent crime in this country is falling.

Residence Cards

David Ward: What steps her Department is taking to ensure that applications for residence cards from citizens of the European economic area which have been referred for policy guidance are processed promptly.

Mark Harper: We aim to process all applications from EEA residents promptly. When a case has to be referred for policy guidance, there are sometimes delays, particularly if policy has changed. We obviously try to keep those delays to a minimum.

David Ward: Many people think that “referring for policy guidance” is a euphemism for disappearing into a big black hole. I am particularly concerned about spouses’ applications for residence cards, which are delayed for a long period before they are dealt with. What checks are there to ensure that cases are not neglected and are not allowed to run on for an inordinate time?

Mark Harper: This is an area where there are often legal judgments by the European Court of Justice that we have to take into account. We have to change the immigration rules accordingly before we can process applications. That is the sort of thing that tends to cause the delays, rather than what my hon. Friend suggests. If he has any particular cases that have to be dealt with urgently for whatever reason, I suggest that he write to me and I will do what I can to expedite them.

Antisocial behaviour

Simon Wright: What steps she is taking to enable local communities to tackle antisocial behaviour.

Jeremy Browne: The Government have published a draft Bill that sets out measures that will put victims and communities at the heart of the response to antisocial behaviour. It includes the community trigger, which will give people the power to make agencies take persistent problems seriously; the community remedy, which will give victims a say in the punishment of offenders out of court; and faster, more effective powers to enable front-line professionals better to protect the public.

Simon Wright: Much of the antisocial behaviour experienced by my constituents in Norwich is associated with excess alcohol consumption. I welcome the new early morning restriction orders, but I urge the Government to end the abundant supply of pocket-money priced alcohol in response to their recent consultation on alcohol pricing.

Jeremy Browne: My hon. Friend is right to remind the House that in October the Government introduced early morning restriction orders along with a provision on the charging of a late-night levy as part of a package of measures to deal with concerns that had been brought to our attention about alcohol licensing and consumption. He will know that the consultation on minimum unit pricing and other alcohol-related measures finished last week. We will consider properly the representations that we have received and make an announcement in due course.

Bill Esterson: Under the Government’s new policy on antisocial behaviour, people will have to complain three times. Why on earth should people have to wait so long before receiving help?

Jeremy Browne: This is frustrating for me, because we have explained this policy so painstakingly and carefully, and the concept is so simple, but let me have one more go. We want every council in the country and other relevant agencies to respond straight away whenever problems are brought to their attention. However, it has been brought to our attention, including in a lot of areas with Labour councils, that people keep bringing complaints, particularly lower-level complaints, about individual incidents that do not always warrant immediate attention. We want to ensure that there is some measure of cumulative impact. That is why we have put this measure in place, and it is popular. In the pilot schemes, people are running with it. I commend it to councils around the country, including Labour-run councils.

Violent Crime

Kelvin Hopkins: What recent assessment she has made of the detection rates for violent crimes against the person; and if she will make a statement.

Jeremy Browne: In 2011-12, the police detected more than 353,000 offences of violence against the person. That represents a detection rate of 46.4%, which is up from 44.7% in 2009-10.

Kelvin Hopkins: I thank the Minister for his answer, but my statistics suggest that police officer numbers are at their lowest in a decade, and that 7,000 fewer crimes of violence against the person were solved in the past year. Does the Minister understand that simple connection, and is it time to stop and reverse the police cuts?

Jeremy Browne: I took the trouble to look up the crime figures for Bedfordshire, which I know will be of interest to the hon. Gentleman; he can tell the House how he sees the correlation. Recorded crime is falling in Bedfordshire. Figures for the 12 months to September 2012 compared with the corresponding 12 months in 2011 show a total reduction in crime of 12% in just one year. Violence against the person was down by 15%, and the Government should be pleased with that record while not being complacent and trying to drive crime down further.

Diana Johnson: Official figures show that 30,000 fewer crimes were solved last year—the first time that figure has fallen in more than a decade. Does the Minister think that the 11,500 fewer police officers on the front line have anything to do with fewer criminals being caught and convicted?

Jeremy Browne: Two things make Labour MPs look really glum: unemployment falling and crime falling. Any party whose interests conflict so directly with the interests of the people it purports to serve has got political problems. The most recent figures from the crime survey for England and Wales show an 8% fall in crime, and recorded crime statistics are down 7%. The Government have got crime down to the lowest point since records began in 1981, so there are fewer crimes to detect. I hope we will carry on and get crime down even further.

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures

John Robertson: How many people are subject to a terrorism prevention and investigation measure.

James Brokenshire: In the last quarterly report on the exercise of powers in the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011, for the reporting period 1 September to 30 November 2012, 10 people were subject to a TPIM notice during that time.

John Robertson: It is nearly 50 days since Ibrahim Magag went missing and the now famous absconding black cab shows that the Home Secretary made a mistake with TPIMs. Will the Minister say whether Ibrahim Magag was under surveillance at that time—nothing technical, a yes or no will do?

James Brokenshire: The operation to locate Ibrahim Magag is ongoing and the police are doing everything in their power to locate and indentify that individual. The hon. Gentleman would perhaps agree that the best place for a terrorist is in prison, and that is why the Government have committed additional resources to supplement the TPIM regime and ensure a balance of preventive measures as well as ensuring that people are brought to justice.

Paul Goggins: What progress has been made on locating Ibrahim Magag. Lord Carlile recently confirmed that no individual absconded while subject to a relocation order. Is the fact that Mr Magag did not abscond while he was relocated but did abscond when he was allowed back to London clear evidence that the decision to remove relocation powers was a serious mistake? Will the Minister look again at that decision?

James Brokenshire: I do not accept the right hon. Gentleman’s point. Indeed, in evidence to the Home Affairs Committee, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner did not say that a parallel such as that the right hon. Gentleman seeks to make could be drawn. We are reviewing the incident closely, as we would any incident of this kind, and if practical issues need to be adopted we will certainly consider and adopt them.

Human Trafficking

David Amess: what steps she has taken to tackle human trafficking groups in their country of origin.

Mark Harper: The UK works closely with partners in source countries to disrupt organised human trafficking gangs. We work hard to apprehend criminals both in those countries and in the United Kingdom.

David Amess: What assessment has my hon. Friend made of section 14 of the Policing and Crime Act 2009 in protecting the victims of trafficking in the UK domestic prostitution market?

Mark Harper: That issue was raised during a recent debate in Westminster Hall, and the Government continue to keep it under review. My hon. Friend may be interested to know that this afternoon I will meet officers of the
	all-party group on human trafficking, including my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), the Baroness Butler-Sloss and Anthony Steen, and I hope we will have further discussions in due course.

William McCrea: Does the Minister believe that the sentences available to the courts are stringent enough to stop unscrupulous agents misleading and forcing women into harsh domestic labour and the sex industry in the United Kingdom?

Mark Harper: I think the sentences that are available are harsh enough. It is sometimes difficult to get evidence to prosecute people for the right offences. For example, people are often not necessarily prosecuted for trafficking offences when other offences are more easily proven. The range of sentencing powers is available: it is our job to make sure that they are properly used by prosecutors.

National Crime Agency

Nicola Blackwood: What assessment she has made of the operational readiness of the National Crime Agency.

Theresa May: Excellent progress is being made in establishing the new National Crime Agency which will be an effective operational crime fighting agency, under the leadership of Director General Keith Bristow.
	Operational activity is already taking place under the NCA’s four commands, building on the previous work of the Serious Organised Crime Agency. I am pleased to say in particular that the shadow border policing command is doing work to improve collaboration at ports.

Nicola Blackwood: My constituents are daily hearing truly shocking evidence of child sexual exploitation emerging in the ongoing trial of nine Oxford men at the Old Bailey. I know that the Home Secretary is unable to comment on the case, but can she tell me how she intends to work with Keith Bristow, Peter Davies and others at the NCA to strengthen our national policing response to child sexual exploitation in our communities?

Theresa May: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this difficult issue, which I know will be a concern to Members on both sides of the House. We all agree that child sexual exploitation is an abhorrent form of abuse, and I know that the police are committed to tackling that crime in all its forms. An increasing number of cases are being brought before the courts, which reflects the increasing attention that the police are paying to this issue.
	Work is being carried out to co-ordinate a response under the organised crime strategy and the child sexual exploitation action plan, which of course includes the vital work of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre. I referred to the shadow border policing command in my previous response: it has been working with CEOP so that, for the first time, the team has been able to target high-risk outbound flights to identify and interdict sex offenders.

Topical Questions

Stuart Andrew: If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

Theresa May: Several news reports have recently alleged improper practices and conduct by the Metropolitan police’s former special demonstration squad. The activities of that squad are being investigated by the Metropolitan police’s professional standards department, under the supervision of the independent police complaints commissioner. The investigation is called Operation Herne.
	Given the seriousness of the latest allegations, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, and the chairman of the IPCC, Dame Anne Owers, have agreed that it would be appropriate for a senior figure from outside the Metropolitan police to take over the leadership of the investigation. Chief Constable Mick Creedon of Derbyshire police has agreed to take on the role, and he brings to the case many years’ experience as a detective. He has also led several major investigations, including police corruption cases and reviews of investigations by other forces, such as the Rhys Jones murder on Merseyside in 2007. The investigation will be under the direction and control of Chief Constable Creedon, but it will remain under the supervision of the IPCC, which will provide further external and independent scrutiny.

Stuart Andrew: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House what steps her Department is taking to reform the UK’s extradition arrangements?

Theresa May: I am happy to confirm to my hon. Friend that it is obviously in the overwhelming public interest that we have sound extradition arrangements that function properly. The public need to have confidence in those arrangements, and it is vital that decisions are not only fair, but are seen to be fair. As I indicated to the House earlier, the Government have recently tabled amendments to the Crime and Courts Bill to introduce a forum bar to extradition, which will make decisions in concurrent jurisdiction cases clear and more transparent.

Yvette Cooper: I welcome the Home Secretary’s announcement on undercover policing, which we have also called for.
	I know the whole House will send its sympathy to the family of Frances Andrade, who took her own life after giving evidence against her abusers in court. She was let down by the criminal justice system, whose job it was to help and protect her. It has emerged that Greater Manchester police supported Mrs Andrade getting counselling, but that Surrey police did not. The Surrey police and crime commissioner has said in the last couple of days that
	“it’s the responsibility of the police to present evidence to the court with the victim in a way which is untainted. That means they will not and should not refer a victim for counselling until after they have given their evidence.”
	Does the Home Secretary agree that this approach by Surrey police is completely unacceptable, and that victims of sexual abuse should never be denied the support and counselling they need? Will she tell all police forces that they need to make sure that counselling is available, and will she ensure that a proper review takes place of the handling of this entire case, so that lessons can be learned from this dreadful tragedy?

Theresa May: I am indeed sure that everybody across the House sends their sympathy and condolences to the family of the lady concerned. This was a terrible case and we all have sympathy with the family for what they have gone through. Improving the way in which the police deal with rape cases has been looked at by Governments over a number of years, because we all recognise the difficulty victims feel in coming forward. Sadly, when we see such incidents I fear that others may be put off, rather than encouraged, from coming forward. We need to look very carefully at what has happened in this case, and very carefully at how we can further improve the system to ensure that victims feel that they will be believed when they come forward and have the confidence to take their case through the courts.

Yvette Cooper: I welcome the Home Secretary’s concern, but I press her to do two specific things in response to this case, the first of which is to tell forces that they need to make sure that counselling is available in these cases. Guidance drawn up in 2002 by the Home Office, Department of Health and Attorney-General states very clearly that
	“vulnerable or intimidated witnesses should not be denied the emotional support and counselling they may need both before and after the trial.”
	The 2010 guidance from Association of Chief Police Officers and Crown Prosecution Service is similarly clear, yet did not apply in this case and the Surrey police and crime commissioner is saying the opposite. Will she give very clear instruction to forces across the country that they must ensure counselling is available in line with national guidance? Will she also ensure that a proper review takes place of all aspects of this case, so that we learn lessons from this terrible tragedy and ensure that vulnerable victims get the help and support that was denied to Frances Andrade?

Theresa May: As I indicated to the right hon. Lady, we will of course look to see what lessons should be learned from this case. She will be aware that the Home Secretary does not instruct police forces to take particular routes. They have operational independence on decisions about how they deal with particular cases. It is important for the guidance to be there, for police forces to be aware of the guidance, and for police forces to operate within the guidance. I will reflect on the right hon. Lady’s remarks on the attention being given to that guidance. I am sure that all of us across the House want a system in which rape victims feel able to come forward and that we are able to see more prosecutions taking place.

Mark Pawsey: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is absolutely no contradiction between having a robust immigration system with an efficient visa system and an economy that is open for business?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend puts it extremely well. There is absolutely no contradiction between having an efficient visa system that enables us to protect our borders and operate appropriate immigration policy, and having a United Kingdom that is open for business and which encourages the brightest and best and those who will be of benefit to the economy to come here. There is no contradiction in doing that and it is possible to do that—indeed, it is what the Government are doing.

Nick Smith: Mephedrone offenceshave increased significantly in Wales since October 2011. More girls are using it than any drug in the past, and dealing is more open than ever before. What are the Government doing to promote cross-border action between England and Wales to tackle the supply of this dangerous drug?

Jeremy Browne: I am extremely sorry to hear about the experiences in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. Drug consumption overall in England and Wales is falling, and there is a lot of different statistical evidence that all points in that direction. However, I take his point that there are differing threats, and that some drugs do not fall in line with other types of drugs. I am happy to meet him if he would like to discuss what more we can do to improve the situation in his constituency.

Harriett Baldwin: What overall progress is the Minister making on reducing net migration into the UK to a more sustainable level?

Mark Harper: I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that the last set of immigration statistics saw a fall of a quarter in net migration, and we are on track to reduce it from the unsustainable hundreds of thousands that it was under Labour to a much more sustainable tens of thousands, which is what the vast majority of the British public want.

Andrew Gwynne: The reality of the Government cuts is that local councils are switching off CCTV cameras and losing local antisocial behaviour officers; that local housing companies cannot get rid of problem tenants; that police stations are closing; and that neighbourhood policing is becoming more remote. Is the Home Secretary as concerned as I am about the retrenchment into a silo budget mentality, and if so, what will she do about it?

James Brokenshire: The hon. Gentleman makes a point about CCTV that, as I have already established, simply is not the case. I am surprised he does not seek to welcome the cuts in crime in his own constituency and the fact that the Government are taking the tough decisions, at a difficult time financially, to ensure that we get the right reform to establish police and crime commissioners and make those decisions locally, as well as cutting crime and making communities safer. I would have thought he welcomed that.

John Glen: The Minister will be aware of the excellent work done by the freedom programme for female victims of domestic violence. In my constituency, the refuge is keen to explore the possibility of a parallel scheme focused on male victims. Will he join me in endorsing this endeavour and indicate what resources are available to support this worthwhile scheme?

Jeremy Browne: My hon. Friend raises an important point. Approximately one fifth of the victims of domestic violence are men, but most of the services—understandably, because the majority of victims are women—are designed
	to help female victims of domestic violence. Where services can be provided to help men, however, it would seem to be an entirely commendable and virtuous form of service provision. I congratulate those involved on what is happening in his constituency, and hope it can be applied more widely where it is seen to be valuable.

Toby Perkins: The Minister has come to these questions armed with some excellent answers, but unfortunately they are not relevant to the questions he is being asked. The specific question is this: he stood for election on the basis of having 3,000 more police officers, but is now part of a Government presiding over 7,000 fewer, and at the same time 30,000 fewer crimes are being solved, so does he still recognise the link between more police officers and fewer crimes being solved?

Jeremy Browne: The crime survey for England and Wales began in 1981, when I was at primary school, and we now have the lowest reported crime in England and Wales since the survey began 32 years ago. I am proud of that record, and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not share my pride.

James Clappison: Have Ministers seen the estimate from Migration Watch of 50,000 people migrating from Bulgaria and Romania? It has a good track record in these matters. May we have the earliest possible announcement of concrete results from the ministerial group on ease of access to benefits?

Mark Harper: I have indeed seen that forecast, but, as I said, I do not think that the Government engaging in speculative forecasts is helpful; what is helpful is our carrying on the work of the committee I am chairing on access to public services and benefits to ensure that we are not a soft touch. I am sure that my hon. Friend will support us in that valuable work.

Jim Sheridan: We have seen some great co-operation between the UK and the EU on crime and justice through the European arrest warrant, as has been seen in the investigation into the sale of illegal horsemeat. May I therefore encourage the Government not to oppose the arrest warrant, to drop the work they are doing and to take a “mare” responsible attitude to this issue?

Theresa May: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are looking at all the measures that fall under the so-called 2014 opt-out. It is the Government’s current intention to opt out of those measures and then negotiate to opt back into those we believe to be in the British national interest. He cites an example of where the European arrest warrant has been used successfully, but hon. Members will know of cases where people have been held for lengthy periods in pre-trial detention, while the proportionality issue worries not only the UK, but other member states. That is why we are discussing the future of the European arrest warrant with other member states.

Caroline Nokes: Can my right hon. Friend tell us what success Hampshire constabulary has had in cutting crime in the Eastleigh area?

Damian Green: I am happy to report to my hon. Friend and the House that I can give her that answer. I am extremely happy to report that in the 12 months to September 2012, there was a fall of 17% in offences recorded by the police in Eastleigh, showing the great success of the Hampshire police.

Gavin Shuker: The damping mechanism that has been applied to Bedfordshire under successive Governments has left it with £22 million less than it should otherwise have. When the Home Secretary met new police and crime commissioner candidates and new police and crime commissioners earlier this month, she said the mechanism would be reviewed, but it has now become clear that it will not be until after the next general election. For how much longer will Bedfordshire have to fight urban levels of crime with rural levels of funding?

Damian Green: I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman that recorded crime in Bedfordshire is down 12% in the year to September 2012. I hope he will welcome that. As he says, this Government have continued the damping mechanism, which was put in place by the previous Government in 2006. We are conducting a review of it. One reason why the review needs to be thorough is precisely so that we can involve the newly elected police and crime commissioners—including the one in Bedfordshire —so that they can make a full contribution to the debate to ensure we have better mechanisms in future.

Christopher Chope: Does the Home Secretary share my concern at the very small number of foreigners convicted in the summer 2011 riots who have been deported? What is going to be done about it?

Mark Harper: My hon. Friend might be interested to know that we are actively pursuing deportation in 150 of those cases and have successfully removed 15 people already. The Government will continue to do so and I am confident that the vast majority of foreign national offenders involved in those riots will be removed from the country once their sentences are complete.

David Winnick: I welcome the inquiry that the Home Secretary has announced into undercover agents. Would it not be appropriate, at this stage at least, for the Home Secretary herself to give an apology to the parents of the dead children whose names were taken for undercover policing? What happened was absolutely disgraceful; such an apology is absolutely appropriate.

Theresa May: The hon. Gentleman makes the point that if it is indeed the case that this has happened, it is absolutely disgraceful. The investigation to establish the facts in relation to this is still ongoing. It is important that we say anything we wish to say about the facts about what has taken place following that investigation.

European Council

David Cameron: I am sure the whole House will join me in sending our best wishes to Pope Benedict following his announcement today. He has worked tirelessly to strengthen Britain’s relations with the Holy See and his visit to Britain in 2010 is remembered with great respect and affection. Pope Benedict’s message on that visit—of working for the common good—is something that spoke to our whole country, and I am sure his successor will continue to provide a voice of inspiration for millions around the world.
	Last week’s European Council agreed the overall limit on EU spending for the next seven years, starting in 2014. When these multi-year deals have been agreed in the past, spending has gone up, but last week we agreed that spending should come down. By working with like-minded allies, we delivered a real-terms cut in what Brussels can spend for the first time in history. As the House knows, the EU budget is negotiated annually, so what we were negotiating—initially at the Council last November and again last week—was not the individual annual budgets, but rather the overall framework for the next seven years. This includes the overall ceilings on what can be spent—effectively, the limit on the European Union’s credit card for the next seven years.
	During the last negotiation, which covered the period 2007 to 2013, the last Government agreed to an 8% increase in the payments ceiling, to €943 billion. Put simply, this gave the EU a credit card with a higher limit, and today we are still living with the results of allowing the EU’s big spenders to push for more and more spending each year.
	In fact, only last year, while member states were having to make tough decisions to tighten their belts at home, the big spenders succeeded in increasing the 2012 European budget by another 5% compared with the previous year. If no deal had been reached, the existing ceilings would have been rolled over and annual budgets could have continued to soar for the next seven years. Because annual budgets are negotiated by qualified majority voting, it can be difficult to constrain spending in these annual negotiations. By contrast, the seven-year limits are agreed by unanimity, so this was our chance to get the ceilings down in line with what could be afforded.
	The European Commission produced an initial proposal for increasing the payments ceiling still further to €988 billion. This was strongly supported by a number of member states. The first negotiation took place at the Council in November, and although the President did then reduce this during the Council itself, it was still some way short of the real-terms cut we were looking for. So together with like-minded allies from a number of countries, including Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands and Denmark, we rejected the deal on the table and told them to think again.
	At this Council, we made further progress. Together with allies, many of whom like Britain write the cheques, we achieved a proper look across all the areas where spending in the Commission proposal could be cut. While there are areas where we could and should go further, not least on reforming the common agricultural
	policy and reducing the bureaucratic costs of the European Commission, we agreed a real-terms cut in the payment limit to €908 billion. That is €80 billion lower than the original proposal; €35 billion lower than the deal agreed by the last Government, which is still in operation today; and €60 billion lower than the emergency arrangements that would have come into place if there were no seven-year deal. My aim was not simply to cut the credit-card limit; I wanted to set the limit at a level that would deliver at worst a freeze and at best a cut in actual spending over the next seven years. That is what this deal delivers—a real-terms cut.
	If we take the latest complete budget—the one for 2012—and freeze spending at that level for the next seven years, we would have spending limits of €932 billion. Our new payments limit means spending cannot rise above €908 billion, so we have slashed €24 billion off a real freeze on the last completed budget. Of course, the budget set in 2012, which Britain voted against, was unacceptably large, but even against the average of the last two completed years—2011 and 2012—this deal still delivers a real-terms cut.
	This deal must now, of course, be voted on by the European Parliament, and the European Council has said it is prepared to accept some flexibilities about how spending is divided between different budget years and different areas of spending, but we are absolutely clear that this must be within the framework that the member states have now agreed. The EU’s seven-year budget will now cost less than 1% of Europe’s gross national income for the first time in its history.
	Let me say a word about how this deal is likely to affect the UK’s contribution; a word about how it is likely to affect what the UK receives from the EU for research, for our regions and for our farmers; and a word about what this means for growth and competitiveness across the European Union as a whole.
	On the UK’s contribution, the House will remember how the last Government gave away almost half of our rebate. This has had a long-term and continuing effect on the UK’s net contributions. It is worth remembering why. It is because when the European Union spends money on structural funds and cohesion payments in eastern European countries, for example, the UK no longer gets a rebate on this money. As a result, almost whatever budget deal was done, our net contributions were always likely to go up. As a result of this deal, however, they will be going up by less. The only two sensible things we could do to protect the British taxpayer in these negotiations were to get the overall budget down and to protect what is left of our rebate.

Edward Balls: Hear, hear.

David Cameron: The right hon. Gentleman keeps on saying “Hear, hear”, but he was the one who gave away our rebate in the first place. Even he is welcome on a happy day like today. That is exactly what we have done.
	While the actual amount that the UK contributes will depend on technical factors, such as the size of the annual budgets, economic performance and exchange rates, as a result of this deal we now expect the UK’s contribution to the EU to fall as a share of our gross national income. As for the rebate that this Government
	inherited, it is now completely untouched. As ever, throughout the negotiations the rebate was attacked repeatedly, but I successfully rejected all the calls for change, and under this Government the British rebate is safe.
	In terms of what the UK receives, I wanted to make sure that our universities were well placed to receive research work, that our less well-off regions were treated fairly compared with others, and that our farmers continued to receive support for the environment schemes that they put in place. Let me deal with each of those points.
	The section of the budget that includes spending on research, innovation and university funding is up by over a third. The money is handed out on the basis of quality, so Britain’s universities are particularly well placed to benefit. We have ensured that structural funds will continue to flow to our less well-off regions, and Britain’s share will remain broadly the same, at around €11 billion. While we have cut spending on the common agricultural policy overall, we have protected the flexibility that will allow us to direct funds to support both the environment and the livelihoods of
	our farming communities.
	Overall, this is a better-framed budget in terms of growth, jobs and competitiveness. It is disappointing that administrative costs are still around 6% of the total, but overall spending on the CAP will fall by 13% compared with the last seven-year budget. Research and development, and other pro-growth investment, will now account for 13% rather than 9% of the total budget.
	Reform of EU spending is a long-term project, but this deal delivers important progress. Working with allies, we took real steps towards reform in the European Union. This is a good deal for Britain, a good deal for Europe, and above all a good deal for all our taxpayers. That is what we have delivered, and I commend my statement to the House.

Edward Miliband: I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. Let me first join him in paying tribute to Pope Benedict XVI. He is a spiritual leader for 2 billion people in the world, and a theologian of great distinction. His visit to the United Kingdom will be long remembered as a proud moment for millions of Catholics in this country, many people of other faiths, and, indeed, many Members of the House. His decision to stand down will not have been reached lightly, and it is right for Members in all parts of the House to acknowledge his service.
	I also join the Prime Minister in welcoming the agreement that has been reached on a cut in the seven-year payment ceilings for the European Union budget. At a time when so many budgets were being cut at home, the House voted for a real-terms cut last October, and it was right to do so. No doubt it was just an oversight that in his statement he forgot to express his thanks to Members on his own Benches and on those of the Opposition for giving him such a strong negotiating mandate. Even he must see the irony of his having sought to vote down a proposal that turned out to be the outcome of the negotiations. He was against it before he was for it: that is the reality.
	As well as restraint in the budget, however, we needed reform. We needed to prioritise growth within a smaller budget by cutting back even further on spending that was not a priority.
	Let me deal first with agriculture. The common agricultural policy fell as a proportion of the budget from 46% in 1997 to 33% in 2010. We welcome the modest continued decline in agriculture spending as a share of the European budget from 31% in 2013 to 27% by 2020, but does the Prime Minister agree that with agriculture making up just 1.5% per cent of the total output of the European Union and still accounting for nearly 30% of the budget, there is still much more to do?
	Secondly, we welcome the increase in funds targeted towards growth, infrastructure, research and development and innovation, but can the Prime Minister confirm that the achievement of a declining budget compared to November’s proposal came not at the expense of agricultural spending but, in part, at the expense of that funding for growth?
	Thirdly, the Prime Minister and I agree on the need for the EU to play its part in effective development, diplomatic and governance support in north Africa. Can he say what discussions took place about how the EU could play that enhanced role in the context of the decision in this budget round to effectively freeze the European development fund, which provides assistance for the region? Given the new emerging challenges across the Sahel, what information can he give us about how funding for that region will be affected? In that context, can he take this opportunity to say something about the transition road map for Mali, which formed part of the Council’s conclusions, or at least part of its discussions?
	Fourthly, given the very significant and unprecedented difference between the ceiling on payments—to which the Prime Minister referred in his statement—and the ceiling on commitments agreed on Friday, can he tell the House what discussions took place about how this would be dealt with in the years ahead?
	While this budget brings restraint, Europe still needs a plan for recovery and growth. The Council’s conclusions talk about the importance of trade agreements. Will the Prime Minister update the House on developments on the possible EU-US trade agreement and on how he sees that being developed this year, including at the G8 summit? Does he recognise, however, that the long-term changes to the budget and the possible EU-US trade agreement are no substitute for a growth strategy for Europe? There are 26 million people looking for work in the European Union, and nearly 6 million unemployed young people looking for work—shamefully, 1 million of them here in the UK. The European economy is struggling and the British economy is flatlining. What Europe now needs, and what Britain now needs, is a plan for jobs and growth. That is the way Europe must change, that is the change that we need for Britain, and that must be the priority for the months and years ahead.

David Cameron: I suppose we should take the welcome. We should take it from someone who never got a freeze, let alone a cut, who never protected our rebate but who gave it away, and who told us that we were going to be marginalised, isolated and picking
	fights in an empty room. But I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s welcome. Thank you. I did not quite get a thank you, but I will give him a thank you for the non-thank you.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked a lot of questions. Let me go through them. On agriculture, he asked whether there was more to do on reducing the budget, given that it represented only 1% of European industry. Yes, there is, although we have taken some steps forward. The common agricultural policy budget pillar one goes from €320 billion to €277 billion, which is a significant change. In terms of what grew in the budget that can help to deliver growth and jobs, we have the Connecting Europe Facility, which is about energy, transport and broadband networks. That goes from €8 billion in the last seven-year period to €19 billion in this period, so I do not think it is entirely fair to say that the right things were not increased or that the right things were not cut. I said in my statement that I was disappointed that we did not go further on the central bureaucracy.
	We did have a discussion on north Africa and Mali. The right hon. Gentleman is wrong to say that the European development fund will go down; it will go up by €1 billion. On Mali, there was very little time left at the end of the marathon Council to discuss those issues, but I took the opportunity to praise the French President for the brave action that the French have taken, to offer our strong support, and to say that we would contribute by training troops from west African nations. I have spoken to the Nigerian President, who is in London today, about that issue. Most of all, however, a political strategy is needed alongside the military efforts.
	On the gap between ceilings and payments, the gap is between €960 billion on commitments and €908.4 billion on payments. That is just over 5%, which is not untypical, given the experience of recent years. The European Commission thought that that gap was deliverable, so I think that answers that question. On EU-US trade, I spoke to President Obama about half an hour ago, and I think we are making progress. I will continue strongly to push and support that measure. On the issue of how we use the European Union to encourage growth, one of the greatest things we can do is to complete the single market in digital, in energy and in services, and it is this Government, working with allies, who are delivering precisely that.
	On the overall deal, there is a real need to ensure that the European Parliament supports it. We are often challenged about the friends we have in Europe, but I would challenge the right hon. Gentleman about his friends there. What is he going to say to his friends in the Party of European Socialists who are condemning this deal, condemning the British action and saying that we should not be constraining European spending? Will he confirm today that Labour MEPs will be voting for this budget? Answer? The head moved a little bit. While he is at it, is it not time to confirm whether his party will back an in/out referendum? Labour’s claim is that the greatest problem is uncertainty, but what could be more uncertain than not knowing whether you are for it or against it? Any progress? It is not a day for answers, but it is a day for celebrating the fact that we have cut the budget for the first time in history.

Malcolm Rifkind: The Prime Minister has been successful in winning the most important reform of the EU budget since Margaret Thatcher in
	Fontainebleau in 1984. Does my right hon. Friend agree that his achievement, and the success last week of a most acceptable reform of the common fisheries policy, demonstrates how many of the United Kingdom’s objectives can be achieved by serious and professional negotiation with our allies? Does he accept also that our objectives—for example, the working time directive—can be achieved, as he did with the EU budget and as the United Kingdom did with the CFP, by working with the close allies we have on so many of these subjects?

David Cameron: I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend, and it is worth paying tribute to Baroness Thatcher, because what makes the British rebate different from the other rebates is that it does not have to be renewed in each seven-year term: it is there as part of the architecture of the budget, and unless you are foolish enough to give some of it away, which the last Government did, it is there and can only be amended by unanimity.
	I agree with what my right hon. and learned Friend says about working with allies, but I would also say this, which is relevant to what Margaret Thatcher achieved at Fontainebleau: everyone in the European Union has got to understand that you are prepared to say no if you do not get what you want.

Jack Straw: In welcoming the progress that was made, may I ask the Prime Minister about further efforts to cut the administrative costs of the European Union? He will be aware that, even in Germany, the high cost of salaries and the benefits that officials enjoy is now a matter of great public controversy. What progress does he think could be made on this budget to ensure that those who work for the European Commission are paid a reasonable salary and not one that offends European taxpayers?

David Cameron: The right hon. Gentleman is right to raise this. The Commission proposal—heading 5, on EU bureaucracy—was €63 billion over the seven-year-period. That was cut back to €61.6 billion, but it is disappointing. Looking at levels of pay, levels of benefit and some of the special payments that people receive, there is a range of reforms that could be made. We must go on arguing for them in the annual budget process and go on working with allies. I think it is now understood across Europe that there are generosities that simply are not defendable.

John Redwood: I congratulate the Prime Minister heartily on a very professional outcome to the negotiations. Will he take this opportunity to ask all party political leaders in this country to urge their MEPs to uphold this deal and to vote for it in the European Parliament? I am sure Conservatives will, but the public would not take kindly to being let down by MEPs after he has done so well.

David Cameron: My right hon. Friend makes an important point. All the UK MEPs account for a decent percentage of the European Parliament, so it makes a real difference if socialist MEPs and Liberal MEPs from Britain vote for this budget, and they should do so in an open, transparent manner. The idea of having a secret ballot in a Parliament seems to me completely wrong. The fact is that you send MEPs to Brussels—and, regrettably, to Strasbourg—so you can see what they do on your behalf.

Peter Hain: But will the Prime Minister confirm that the entire EU budget accounts for just 1% of the gross national income of all 27 European member states? Should not his real priority be to end the disastrous policy of austerity that he and his fellow leaders are imposing right across Europe, and instead kick-start growth and investment to bring hope and prosperity instead of despair and stagnation?

David Cameron: I am afraid it is this attitude—a little bit of billions here and a little bit of billions there does not really matter very much—that has got us into so much trouble. Yes, it is 1%, for the first time, of Europe’s GNI, but the fact is that it is many billions of pounds that we pay into the European Union, and it is very important that we keep the budget under control.

Simon Hughes: May I congratulate the Prime Minister on the outcome of the deal and tell him that my colleagues here and our MEPs are supportive of the deal agreed in terms of the size of the budget? Given that the deal achieved with like-minded partners protected niche areas such as police co-operation, will he join me in saying to people such as the leader of the UK Independence party that they cannot, on the one hand, make arguments that we should not have Bulgarians, Romanians and others flooding our shores, and on the other hand not have the European arrest warrant and arrangements like it, which provide European police co-operation?

David Cameron: I very much welcome the commitment by the Liberal Democrats in the European Parliament to support this budget. That is two down—the Conservatives are up for it and the Liberals are up for it—so what about Labour? What are you going to do when all those other socialists in Europe tell you that this is a terrible deal and that we should not be cutting spending? When are we going to see some leadership from the Labour party?
	On the issue of Bulgaria, the right hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the European arrest warrant. I would also make the point that it is important that we do have structural and cohesion funds that help countries recovering from decades of communism to raise their living standards. We should be proud of the fact that we do support a European Union in that way.

Keith Vaz: What discussions took place about the justice and home affairs agenda? As the Prime Minister knows, last year 100,000 people crossed illegally from Turkey into Greece. Does he not think that support for Frontex and its ability to deploy the RABITs—Rapid Border Intervention Teams—is essential to protecting the border? Is that going to be preserved?

David Cameron: There was not a specific discussion about Frontex, but under the so-called heading 3 the home affairs heading, spending is going up from €12.4 billion to €15.7 billion. That is an area where there are new responsibilities, not least because of the new member states, which is why the spending under that heading is going up.

Peter Lilley: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on demonstrating that when a British leader takes a resolute, reasoned and constructive approach on what is good for Britain
	and good for Europe, we can succeed in carrying other people with us, and on disproving the craven prediction of the Leader of the Opposition that by articulating Britain’s distinctive vision for the future of Europe we would undermine our influence?

David Cameron: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for that. What is required is not only building these alliances and making those arguments, but, as I said, making it clear that if you cannot get a reasonable deal, you are prepared to go on negotiating right through the night, as we did, or, as we did in November, saying, “This deal isn’t acceptable. You have to go back and think again.”

Kate Hoey: May I, on behalf of my constituents, congratulate the Prime Minister on getting this overall reduction in the budget for the United Kingdom, which will be very welcome indeed? Does he agree that it would be very helpful if all MEPs voted for it? Will he outline to the House exactly what will happen should they not do so?

David Cameron: Obviously, if we cannot agree a budget, the situation would be very serious. That point was made at the Council repeatedly because, although of course there are emergency arrangements for just continuing with the existing ceilings and rolling them forward, it would be impossible for countries to plan their cohesion spending, their structural fund spending, what roads to build and what networks to put in place. That would be a very unsatisfactory outcome. I hope that the Parliament will look seriously at that, recognise that having no deal would be very bad for all countries that want to see proper planning and proper budgeting, and recognise that this is a good deal and it should accept it.

William Cash: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on this significant success? He carried it through in line with the most important of his five Bloomberg principles, namely that the root of our democracy and accountability lies in this Parliament, which recently voted for such a reduction. Does that not prove that the UK national interest is best served when the Government and Parliament are at one?

David Cameron: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. A number of leaders of different European countries kept referring to what they thought the European Parliament would do if we agreed this figure or that figure, so the point had to be made fairly frequently in the Council that we should also, and more importantly, be listening to the individual national Parliaments, because of course it is our Parliaments that have to vote the money. The European Parliament does not have any responsibility for voting the money, and it is to our Parliaments that we should account.

David Miliband: I am sure that the Prime Minister is right to say that no deal would be very damaging, both for Europe and for Britain. Could he say something about the part of his statement that referred to a new power for the European Parliament to negotiate flexibilities over years, and I think also over budget heads? On one reading, that is a sensible bit of flexibility; on another, it is a chance for the modicum
	of reform that has been achieved to be rolled back. That would obviously be very damaging indeed. Could he say a bit more about that?

David Cameron: I would be delighted to. First, we have to remember that the answer to the question, “Why is it that the European Parliament has any say over this budget at all?” is the Lisbon treaty, which the right hon. Gentleman’s party, in government, passed. Having said that, and given that we have to try to ensure that there is a deal, and it is better to have a deal than no deal, it is right to say to the Parliament, “It is important you can look at flexibilities between different years—between different budget headings—to try to ensure that spending is planned properly,” but I was very specific, and it was very specifically said at the Council, that this flexibility cannot result in the €908.4 billion ceiling being increased. That cannot go up. Money can be moved around to plan spending more effectively, although, of course, all that has to come back to the Council to be agreed, but the €908.4 billion, in my view, is inviolable.

Richard Ottaway: At a time when the democratic link between the EU and the people of the EU is wafer thin, does the Prime Minister agree that any attempt by the European Parliament to ratify the agreement by secret ballot should and would be treated with contempt?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is right. A secret ballot in a Parliament is an extraordinary concept. MPs and MEPs should vote transparently so that their constituents can hold them to account. They have to account not only to their electorates but to their countries, which will suffer if a deal is not passed through.

Mike Gapes: Will the Prime Minister confirm that his Government are still in favour of future enlargement of the EU beyond Croatia to countries in the western Balkans and, potentially, elsewhere? Given that this budget lasts until 2020, what provision is there in it for any further accessions of new states after Croatia?

David Cameron: We are in favour of further expansion of the EU to the countries of the western Balkans and others, as the hon. Gentleman says. Obviously, there is room in the budget for cohesion and other payments, but the fixed amount of payment ceiling— €908.4 billion—cannot change.

Cheryl Gillan: May I add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend on returning from Europe with a very good deal for the United Kingdom? [Interruption.] I see him wincing. The ongoing, long-term reductions in staff of the European institutions has been close to his heart. Does he now expect to see a reduction in staff, as well as a return to perhaps less generous remuneration and retirement packages than EU officials currently enjoy?

David Cameron: I reassure my right hon. Friend that I was wincing at a piece of paper I was passed, not at all at anything she said.

Christopher Leslie: What did it say?

David Cameron: That’s for me to know and you to find out.
	I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend that we need to make more progress. It is disappointing how far we have come but I think there is a sense in Brussels that, somehow, its officials are higher beings, and they even referred to civil servants elsewhere as burger flippers, compared with their lofty role. That really needs to be beaten down and we need to recognise that its civil servants have to live within proper budgets, just as ours have to.

Gisela Stuart: I hate to tell the Prime Minister that my predecessor apparently left that piece of paper behind in Munich, so whatever piece of paper he had I hope he brought with him.
	Were there any discussions on the proposed bail-out for Cyprus, in particular the suggestion that uninsured deposits in Cypriot banks be written down as losses, which would have considerable effect for people here?

David Cameron: There was a brief discussion about Cyprus, not least because President Christofias was attending his last European Council. Herman Van Rompuy gave a moving eulogy and described him as everyone’s favourite communist, which received widespread assent. ECOFIN is meeting and will properly discuss those things. There was not an in-depth discussion about the Cypriot financial situation.

Martin Horwood: I welcome and support the Prime Minister’s statement. I am sure that no horsemeat was on the menu in Brussels, but can he reassure us that Europol’s budget will be protected in the multi-annual framework, given its recent success in identifying 103 people-smuggling suspects and 425 people implicated in football match-fixing, and its emerging role in tackling the cross-border crime involved in the horsemeat scandal?

David Cameron: If my hon. Friend looks at heading 3, which is the money spent on home affairs, justice and Europol issues, he will see that that budget is going from €12.4 billion to €15.7 billion. I join him in saying that the horsemeat issue is extremely serious. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said, this is predominantly an issue of food safety, food labelling and truth telling to consumers, but we need to do everything we can to get on top of it.

Hywel Williams: The Prime Minister wants to repatriate regional policy. As a sign of his good intentions, will he guarantee to make up in full any shortfall in cohesion funding for west Wales and the valleys?

David Cameron: Overall, the amount of structural funds that will be coming to the United Kingdom at around €11 billion is a small reduction, but broadly the same—maybe 2% less. We then have to decide how that money is fairly divided up between the different regions. Of course, west Wales is one of the less developed regions so should benefit from that. We will be making final determinations about how the money is divided up when we know more about the overall figures and the proposal has been passed by the European Parliament.

Edward Leigh: May I warmly congratulate the Prime Minister on being more sceptical than the sceptics and delivering an even better deal than the cash freeze that some of us voted for in public last autumn? On the day that Pope Benedict has announced his resignation, surely some people in Europe will come to realise that the ideal of Europe lies in western civilisation, not in a bunch of MEPs voting in secret to preserve their perks and pay.

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is entirely right. A secret ballot would be wrong. We need an open ballot, but I would encourage every MEP from right across the United Kingdom, whatever their party, to support the budget, because it is better to have a deal than to have no deal, and this deal is right for Europe’s taxpayers.

Jeremy Corbyn: During the summit the Prime Minister clearly had talks with President Hollande about the situation in Mali, but strangely he has made no statement to the House of Commons on this. Can he tell us how long the French troops intend to be there, how many more British troops are going, the cost of them, and above all, the military objective of the British participation in this enterprise?

David Cameron: There was a brief discussion about Mali, which President Hollande led, and I did have a discussion with him. I strongly support what the French have done. I do not believe it is their intention to keep their troops there a moment longer than they have to. The intention is to train up African forces from the west African states. Britain is prepared to contribute some 200 troops to that purpose. I spoke this morning to President Goodluck Jonathan of Nigeria to offer our support to train Nigerian troops. It is our intention and that of the French that those west African troops will replace the French troops. Then two things need to happen—a political agreement in Mali that helps to bring that country together, and the rapid training of Malian forces so that they can take responsibility for their own security. No one wants foreign troops to stay in Mali a second longer than is necessary, and that is certainly not our intention.

Andrea Leadsom: The Prime Minister has achieved two incredible firsts recently—not just the rolling back of the multi-annual financial framework, but the double majority lock for European banking union voting. Does he believe that this means that austerity has led to a new realism in the European Union? Does he think the support that he has gained for his reforms recently will lead to a greater acceptance of the need for reform and repatriation in achieving a new settlement for Britain as a member of the EU?

David Cameron: I thank my hon. Friend for what she says. Two things are happening. First, there is a growing sense right across Europe, not just in the UK, that we must have proper control of EU spending, and that if we are tightening our belt at home, we should not be spending more through the EU. That had strong support.
	Secondly, countries are seeing that as the euro requires a further tightening of parts of the European Union, proper arrangements need to be put in place for non-euro
	countries. The banking union agreement was a really good example of that, and I hope that it is the precursor to more such arrangements, which would be helpful for non-euro countries like Britain.

Wayne David: Quite a few Members on both sides of the House have been generous to the Prime Minister this afternoon. Will he reciprocate and congratulate his Back Benchers and the Opposition on giving him such a strong negotiating mandate?

David Cameron: I thank everyone who had this incredible foresight. I would like to argue today that it was all part of a careful plan. Perhaps on a day like this I will just leave it at that.

Mark Reckless: May I congratulate the Prime Minister on a hugely impressive achievement that saves every household £150? Will he confirm that as well as the new ceilings being well below the old ceilings, even more impressively they are below the 2011-12 actual payments, and that as well as gross contributions being lower under this deal, it is conceivable that, despite the Labour rebate giveaway, even net contributions will come down?

David Cameron: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for what he says. It is difficult to foresee net contributions coming down because it would not be right to keep trying to spend more on agriculture, where we do get a rebate, than to spend more on cohesion for the poorest countries in Europe, where we do not get a rebate. As I said, the best way to protect our net position which makes sense is to keep the rebate and keep the overall level of spending down. I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that the key is to set the ceilings at a level where they are not just coming down but constrain the budget, and that is what we have managed to do.

John Healey: Will the Prime Minister welcome the budget agreement to introduce transition regions, which should give a useful boost to economic growth and investment and should be worth an extra £300 million to us in South Yorkshire? Will he pay tribute to the local authorities, led by all political parties, that argued so strongly for this support? Will he explain why the Government remained opposed to transition regions right until the very end?

David Cameron: I can confirm that Britain will benefit in terms of transition regions. We always go into these negotiations arguing that we need to look at all levels of spending and all economies, because it is rather hypocritical to argue, “You’ve got to cut the overall spending but you’ve got to protect every single bit of what Britain receives.” The good news is that 11 regions are likely to benefit: Tees Valley and Durham, Lincolnshire, Merseyside, Shropshire and Staffordshire, Highlands and Islands, South Yorkshire, Lancashire, Cumbria, East Yorkshire, North Lincolnshire, Northern Ireland and Devon. Those will all, we hope, be transition regions under the new plans.

Mark Pritchard: May I congratulate the Prime Minister on winning for Britain in Brussels and put on record my thanks and recognition for his
	clearly formidable negotiating skills? Does not this show that any British Prime Minister is strengthened when there is a Commons vote behind him, whether it be for an EU referendum or an EU budget cut?

David Cameron: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his support. It is absolutely right to say that the British Parliament speaks clearly about these issues and is listened to carefully in the corridors of Brussels. That is true. We should always respect the fact that it is to this Parliament that Prime Ministers have to answer.

Hugh Bayley: What did other leaders say to the Prime Minister in the margins about a British referendum? Does he believe that this budget deal makes the case for Britain staying in Europe stronger?

David Cameron: I would say that the reaction that I have had to the speech I made a few weeks ago has been, on the whole, fairly positive, because people can see that it is not some simplistic argument about an immediate referendum—it is a well-argued case, I would say, for how Europe should reform and how we should secure Britain’s place within it. These discussions show that Britain can get good deals done with partners in Europe having made a speech on that subject. I think that actually it strengthens Britain’s place in Europe.

Jane Ellison: May I congratulate the Prime Minister on what The Economist blog described as a “budget blinder”? Does this give him heart as he pursues the wider reform agenda to which he has just referred?

David Cameron: I thank my hon. Friend for her support. This is just one of many steps that we need to take to reform the European Union, all of which should be good for other countries in Europe, as well as for Britain.

Stephen McCabe: I congratulate the Prime Minister. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Is it still his understanding that the €36.8 billion described as outside the multiannual financial framework will lead to additional British payments, as he has previously warned, and what estimate has he made of the cost to the UK of those additional payments?

David Cameron: There has always been off-EU budget spending and it is important that we control that as well. The Germans have been particularly focused on this agenda and have made some very good proposals for savings there, too.

David Nuttall: I congratulate the Prime Minister on his statement. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the fact that the United Kingdom gets to have a veto on EU spending limits only once every seven years, and that 4,365 eurocrats are paid more than either my right hon. Friend or the German Chancellor, might just be a couple of the reasons why millions of British people have come to the conclusion that this country would be better off outside the EU?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is entirely right that it is only once every seven years that we have the unanimity lock that enables us to achieve a deal such as
	this one. I do not share his view that Britain would be better off outside the European Union, but I accept what he says: we need to convince people that Europe and the bureaucracy live on a tight budget. We have taken some steps forward, but I am not satisfied with where we have got to with regard to the costs of the Commission or the other central costs. Six per cent. is still too high and, just as Government Departments here have made and are planning huge savings between 2010 and 2015, the same should apply in Brussels, too.

Kelvin Hopkins: The future of the euro remains extremely uncertain. Indeed, a wobble in the markets only last week shows how brittle it is. Are there still European politicians who believe that the euro was a good idea and that it is now safe?

David Cameron: The answer is yes. As I have said—we have had this exchange before—I have never supported Britain’s membership of the euro and never will. We are better off outside it, but we have to understand the fact that, for some European leaders and politicians, the euro is an article of faith and they will do everything they can to save their currency. That is why I think we should be planning on the basis of change in Europe; the eurozone requires changes to make sense of its currency, and we should use that opportunity to win changes that are good for countries outside the euro, too.

Henry Bellingham: This is a superb deal and the Prime Minister deserves many plaudits. However, one area that we surely need to look at again is the EU External Action Service. Does the Prime Minister agree that the European EAS should not be competing with large European countries such as Britain, France and Germany, but complementing us and, therefore, opening missions in those countries where the big countries in Europe are under-represented or not represented?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is entirely right. There is a danger that the European External Action Service, which was, of course, part of the Lisbon treaty that he and I opposed, will start duplicating what is done by individual countries. We need to work very hard to make sure that it is adding value rather than just displacing it.

Nick Smith: Given the significant difference between the payment ceilings and the commitment ceilings, what does the Prime Minister think is the likelihood of the EU having to increase the annual budgets beyond the level set out in the multiannual financial framework on a year-by-year basis?

David Cameron: The hon. Gentleman asks an extremely important question. Over the last MFF, there was something like a 7% gap, on average, between commitments and payments, so I would argue that a 5% gap is perfectly safe. I think that what we will see is lots of efforts by the institutions of the European Union, now that they are on a tighter budget, to try to spend their money more effectively and to try to use the headroom available. That is perfectly understandable and it might lead to better financial planning, but we can be confident that the ceilings are fixed and that, as a result, the spending will be less.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: There is rejoicing in Somerset at the good news that the Prime Minister has brought back. Could he tell the House what example this sets for the renegotiation and whether it bodes extremely well for our getting rule back to Britain?

David Cameron: I thank my hon. Friend for his support. I am glad to know that the good people of Somerset are in a hearty mood. This deal shows that those who build alliances, make strong arguments and stand up for what they want can get a good deal in Europe.

Penny Mordaunt: We have just heard, unbelievably, the Leader of the Opposition claiming credit for the Prime Minister’s achievement. I know that the Prime Minister is a charitable fellow so, given the vocal support of the shadow Chancellor, perhaps we could give them a little credit if they manage to get their socialist MEPs to support the deal.

David Cameron: I am afraid that that is the key test. It is one thing saying something in this Parliament. The real test of leadership is whether the Leader of the Opposition can get not only his own socialist MEPs, but all socialist MEPs to support the deal. If he thinks that it is such a good idea and if he is such a leading player in the socialist group, surely he will be able to convince his MEPs, but we have heard not a word about that.

Shailesh Vara: I congratulate the Prime Minister on rejecting the calls for a further review of our rebate. Does he agree that it is high time for the Labour party to apologise for giving away nearly half the rebate when it was in power, which is costing the country billions of pounds?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I am sorry to disappoint him, but I am afraid that the Labour party has not learned the lesson. Its group in the European Parliament, the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats, has called for an end to all rebates, including ours. Its EU budget reform submission stated that the socialist and democratic group
	“calls on the Commission to propose to put an end to all form of rebates”.
	Far from learning from its mistakes, the Labour party would like to do it all over again.

Robert Walter: A number of newspapers in this country have been “banging on” about Europe for many years and have often been cynical about our influence. Does the Prime Minister share my disappointment that on Saturday morning, a number of newspapers, including The Daily Telegraph, relegated his victory to a small article on page 8, while the Financial Times heralded it as a “significant victory” and even Le Figaro described it as a “masterstroke”?

David Cameron: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. I will have to spend a bit more time studying the European press. I hope that the people can see that this is a good deal for Britain and for taxpayers across Europe.

Neil Carmichael: Does the Prime Minister agree that this excellent budget, which is good for both Britain and Europe, paves the way for Britain to continue to develop alliances and to set sensible targets to reform Europe in a way that creates a more competitive business environment?

David Cameron: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is important that we continue the work of shrinking the agriculture part of the budget and growing the part of the budget that goes towards research and development and investment, because we want a modern European economy that can win in the global race.

Peter Bone: In 2011, the Prime Minister vetoed the EU treaty. Earlier this year, he made the Bloomberg declaration, promising an in/out referendum. Last Friday, he forced the EU to cut the budget. Is he not proving that he is a traditional Tory? Surely this statesman is not the heir to Blair, but the heir to Thatcher.

David Cameron: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that—for those remarks. I am glad that I have made him and, I hope, Mrs Bone happy on this occasion.

Margot James: I congratulate the Prime Minister on a double first last week: the first real-terms cut to the budget and the first time that the overall budget has been less than 1% of GDP. That gives the lie, does it not, to the accusations of the Labour party that Britain has been isolated in Europe ever since he used the veto just over a year ago? Is it not a combination of the red lines that he has drawn, the negotiating strategy and the building of alliances that has led to this successful outcome?

David Cameron: I thank my hon. Friend for her remarks. As with the fiscal treaty, it is important that if we cannot accept something and do not want to accept something, we are prepared to say no. It is also vital to build alliances. Britain worked closely with the Swedes, the Danes, the Dutch and the Germans to build a strong alliance for a good deal for Europe’s taxpayers.

Chris Heaton-Harris: I congratulate the Prime Minister on his exploits last Thursday and Friday and on the build-up work to the summit. He will recall that many people told him that what he achieved in Brussels could not be done. Indeed, one said that there was “absolutely no prospect” of Britain securing a cut in the EU budget. What conversations has my right hon. Friend had with the Deputy Prime Minister since his return from Brussels?

David Cameron: Although the Eastleigh by-election is now under way, to be fair to the Deputy Prime Minister there was agreement that we were going to take a very tough line, and if we could not get a good deal we were able to say no.

Bernard Jenkin: May I join the many voices of congratulation for my right hon. Friend and say how much I am enjoying this statement? Not only has he brought back a good deal
	for the British taxpayer, but it was a good day for the British Parliament—this House voted for a cut, and he delivered it.

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is important that other European leaders recognise that when we sit round that table, we listen not to the European Parliament, which has its legitimate views, but to our own Parliaments. That goes for the British Parliament and also for the German, Swedish, Dutch and Danish Parliaments. All Parliaments of the net contributors must be listened to.

James Clappison: May I join the congratulations to the Prime Minister on his personal achievement in bringing back a great deal for Britain? For years, the European Union has talked about its growth agenda, but is not the fact of the matter that EU regulation and the EU political project are holding back, rather than promoting, growth in Europe?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Although there are things in the EU budget that can help growth—clearly, if we invest in the brilliance of British universities, that is welcome—we also need to drive the agenda of completing the single market and knocking out unnecessary regulation, as my right hon. Friends in the Cabinet are doing.

Angie Bray: May I also add my congratulations to those coming from both sides of the House on this significant result in Brussels? I note that the shadow Chancellor is doing his best to cheer himself up. Does my right hon. Friend agree that while we have a Conservative Prime Minister negotiating on behalf of this country, the rebate is safe?

David Cameron: Absolutely; I can confirm that I would never agree to changes in the rebate and I think that is very important—[Interruption.] No, never. I would not agree to changes in the rebate; I think that would be completely wrong. Margaret Thatcher got a fantastic deal, and the fact about the rebate is that it lasts through all MFF periods, rather than having to be renewed on every occasion.
	It is interesting that the Shadow Chancellor is now so in favour of this. Only weeks ago he was saying that we need reform of the budget but that,
	“David Cameron…has failed to build the alliances needed to deliver it.”
	That was his view, but as he cheers away—I am expecting one of his lasagnes before too long.

George Freeman: The people of this country waited nearly four decades for a British leader strong enough to promise them a say on the European juggernaut and to stop the budget from growing, so may I congratulate the Prime Minister on delivering both in nearly three weeks? I particularly welcome the shift of resources to research and development, which will do the economy and Britain a world of good. Le Figaro has described the Prime Minister as a tenacious negotiator, fuelled, no doubt, by Haribo and other great British exports. Does he agree that that suggests that the clarity of his Bloomberg speech reinforces rather than weakens his negotiating position?

David Cameron: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. It is because that speech is a proper agenda for reform in Europe, and about all of Europe not just Britain’s relationship with Europe, that it gives us a good platform to take forward talks with our partners.

John Baron: I commend the Prime Minister on this positive development that gives expression to the will of this Parliament. Given that Opposition concerns about isolation prove unfounded, will the Prime Minister say a little more about the longer term ramifications when it comes to negotiations ahead of the EU referendum?

David Cameron: As I have said, this shows that we should have a very clear bottom line and set of objectives that we want to achieve, and that we must work very closely with partners and allies to try to build up our arguments and alliances. That is what we have done over the single market, where a huge number of countries are backing our view. That is what we are doing over the EU trade deals—I hope we can make further progress on those—and that is also what we must do with our EU reform package.

Christopher Chope: May I thank my right hon. Friend for having listened to the House on this issue, and congratulate him on his good judgment in not taking the Deputy Prime Minister with him to negotiate? May I ask him to build on his success by organising an independent audit of the costs and benefits of our membership of the European Union?

David Cameron: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his support on this issue. As for the costs and benefits of membership, I think the balance of competences review that will be carried out by the Foreign Office will give everyone the opportunity to make their points about which areas of European endeavour are in our interest and which are not. We should allow that debate to take place.

Crispin Blunt: This remarkable negotiating triumph follows hard on the heels of the Prime Minister’s referendum promise which has done so much to improve his negotiating hand to further advance British and European interests in Europe. Will he undertake not to take advice from the Opposition, who told him that he was too isolated in Europe to achieve these objectives and whose MEPs are about to vote in secret against the synthetic posturing of the Leader of the Opposition—one of the things that brings the European Union into such disrepute?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes a good point. In November, the shadow Chancellor said that
	“David Cameron has failed to persuade other European leaders to deliver the reform of and real terms cut in the Budget”;
	and we were accused by the shadow Foreign Secretary of being “isolated and marginalised”; but importantly, the Europe spokesperson said that
	“If he does get a good deal for British taxpayers then we will commend him for that”.

Chris Kelly: I heartily congratulate my right hon. Friend who has shown that he is an adept negotiator and demonstrated resilience without the need to wield a handbag. Can he suggest any ways to improve
	EU negotiations so that they do not involve all-night sittings that are designed to wear down Heads of Government?

David Cameron: For the record, may I say that I do not have a handbag, which will reassure my hon. Friends, some of whom I know I have upset recently. I promise that I do not have a handbag and I have no plans to get one—[Interruption.] No, neither a manbag nor a handbag.
	On the issue of how the EU does business, I agree that these all-night sittings are not a sensible way to discuss rationally things such as budgets. We need to try to find a way to start our work in the morning and try to complete it, rather than starting in the evening and going all the way through the night.

Julian Brazier: In congratulating my right hon. Friend on this triumph, may I suggest to him that the bold bottom line on his long-term renegotiation of our role in Europe seems to have focused some minds wonderfully among other net contributors to the budget?

David Cameron: I thank my hon. Friend for his support. There is support in Europe for reform and for the agenda that we have set out, but we will have to work extremely hard to build alliances and win friends in order to deliver what I think would be good for Europe, but also good for Britain in Europe.

James Morris: May I congratulate the Prime Minister on his historic success? Does he agree that not only has he delivered a budget cut, but this is an important moment for growth in the European Union, with important emphasis on research and development, and competitiveness?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is entirely right. That is why, within a budget that needs to be properly constrained, we need changes to the common agricultural policy in order to deliver more money for research and development and things that can help growth in Europe. We have achieved that: I wish we had gone further in that regard, but we can still make that argument in individual budget negotiations.

Robert Buckland: May I echo the support for my right hon. Friend and the work that he and his ministerial team have done, not only in the last week but in the months preceding these negotiations—engaging with countries such as Germany, building alliances, showing that Britain has real influence in Europe and being positive?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is strong support for the different agenda items that we want to pursue—whether that is constraining properly the European budget, completing the single market or making sure that we are having the impact that we want in terms of terrorism—and we should build those alliances and work accordingly.

Henry Smith: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the great job that he has done, not only for the British taxpayer but for the European
	taxpayer. One of the problems with the European Union is that it is often far too inward looking. Can he say what progress was made at the European Council on free trade agreements in a global sense?

David Cameron: The conclusions agreed at the Council are that we will open discussions with Japan on its free trade agreement, we are enthusiastic about the potential for an EU-US trade deal, and that we are close to completion on the Canada free trade agreement. The paper submitted to the Council was one of the most pro-trade, pro-reform papers I have seen, and that is thoroughly to the good.

Alun Cairns: I, too, congratulate the Prime Minister on the significant success he achieved at the European negotiations. Does he share my confusion regarding the Opposition’s position? The Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Chancellor are seeking to claim to credit, yet the most senior Labour politician in government, the First Minister of Wales, is critical and is calling for a higher EU budget settlement. Does the Prime Minister share my confusion?

David Cameron: I have to admit that it is confusing, because of course Labour MEPs voted against a freeze in the EU budget when they were given the opportunity. What we need to hear from the Opposition is that they will show some leadership and tell their MEPs that this is a good deal for Britain and that they will back it. Let me give the Leader of the Opposition another chance. Will his MEPs be backing this budget: yes or no? [Interruption.] That was a no. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Mr Balls, you are barking in the most bellicose fashion at the Government Benches. I know that whenever you do anything you do not it quietly, but a degree of restraint would be appreciated.

Philip Hollobone: I am sure my constituents in Kettering would want me to congratulate the Prime Minister warmly on negotiating a real-terms cut in the EU budget. Will he take this opportunity to name and shame those of our European partners who most vociferously resisted attempts to cut the administrative budget?

David Cameron: I am afraid to say that the people who most oppose a cut to the administrative part of the EU budget were in the European Commission itself. They made a series of arguments about the extra roles and duties they had to take on, but I do not believe that they have looked properly at what member states have done in terms of pay freezes and pension and allowance reforms. They simply have not looked at what countries are having to do and what they should be doing in Brussels.

Julian Smith: With this wonderful budget the Prime Minister has led the pack on trade and growth. Will he continue to use his pole position to ensure that the Japan and US mega-deals are nailed as soon as possible, as they will mean billions for the European economy?

David Cameron: I will certainly do that. Paragraph 7 of the conclusions talks about support for a comprehensive trade agreement with the US, looks forward to the launch
	of negotiations with Japan, and expects the negotiations with Canada to be concluded very shortly. Britain will continue to lead on this issue.

Philip Davies: I also congratulate the Prime Minister. He has shown clearly the difference between what happens when a Conservative Prime Minister negotiates for this country and when a Labour Prime Minister negotiates for this country. He has done far better, I might add, than any of the unlikely leadership bidders we have seen on the Conservative Benches in recent weeks, too. Will he set out to the House clearly what he expects the UK’s gross contribution and net contribution to be in each of the next seven years?

David Cameron: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his steadfast support. The difficulty in answering his question directly is that until we have the exact breakdowns of spending on agriculture, structural funds and cohesion in each year, it is difficult to work out exactly how much the rebate will deliver. The rebate does not operate on the cohesion spending in eastern Europe, but it does operate on agriculture spending. It is only when we know those parameters that we can work out the position. I have been straightforward and said that the British contribution is likely to go up because of the changes to the rebate agreed by the previous Government. However, they will go up by less than they would have done, because we have constrained the budget and because we have kept the rest of the rebate intact.

Michael Ellis: I congratulate the Prime Minister. Will he note that the shadow Chancellor has now cheered the Prime Minister more this afternoon than he has cheered his own leader in the past year? What does the Prime Minister make of the shadow Chancellor’s claim in the Yorkshire Post this weekend that Labour has
	“absolutely not ruled out a referendum”?

David Cameron: rose—

Mr Speaker: I say to the hon. Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis) that the Prime Minister is responsible for many things, but he is not responsible for the policy positions of the shadow Chancellor and he is certainly not responsible for what quotes are given or attributed to the shadow Chancellor in the Yorkshire Post. However, we will hear a sentence from the Prime Minister.

David Cameron: All I can do, Mr Speaker, is reflect on your ruling that the shadow Chancellor is indeed barking—and for clarification, I do not mean barking as in Barking and Dagenham; I mean barking as in woof.

Charlie Elphicke: I also congratulate the Prime Minister on achieving an outstanding deal—we can tell it is outstanding because the French and the Labour party are agreed and are congratulating him on his negotiating stance.
	I want to ask the Prime Minister about structural funds, which are very important to many regions of the country, including east Kent. Will he ensure that if the map for the UK is to be changed, Members of Parliament for the relevant areas will be consulted and will have a chance to say where they stand?

David Cameron: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he says. Under the new arrangements, there will be three different types of support for the regions. There will be the less-developed regions whose GDP per capita is less than three quarters of the EU average. In the UK, Cornwall and the Scilly Isles, west Wales and the valleys will qualify for that support. Then there are the transition regions whose GDP per capita is between 75% and 90% of the EU average—that is the list I read out earlier. However, all regions can of course receive some structural funds for competitiveness and employment goals. We will be able to make more details available as the full figures become available.

Jason McCartney: I congratulate the Prime Minister on another successful victory for the UK in Europe—hot on the heels of Yorkshire’s audacious bid for the Tour de France, which we will now be hosting next July. On the EU budget, does he agree that there is a lot of overlap and duplication in foreign affairs and defence, making them potentially big areas for budget savings?

David Cameron: First, I join my hon. Friend in welcoming the fact that the Tour de France will start in Yorkshire. I heard a very good presentation in Leeds. It is an extremely exciting course, and I am sure that it will bring many spectators and enormous support for west Yorkshire.
	In response to my hon. Friend’s question about the budget, I think that further works needs to be done on some of the smaller headings—administration and others—where there is room for further savings.

Charlotte Leslie: Given Labour’s record of giving away the UK rebate, given that Hansard is littered with its Members wittering on about us being isolated in Europe, given that the Prime Minister has pledged to give the British people a say on our future in Europe, which Labour denied them, and given that he has now achieved a historic budget negotiation success, what would he now say to Labour?

David Cameron: I hope that Labour will turn to its friends in the European Parliament and say to the socialist MEPs, “This is a good deal for Europe and you should vote for it.” Let me give the leader of the Labour party another chance, because this is important. [Interruption.] Oh, he cannot intervene on his own MEPs. What is the point of a Leader of the Opposition, if they cannot lead on occasion?

Rehman Chishti: First, I congratulate the Prime Minister. Despite the success of the wave of change in north Africa and the middle east, some of those countries, such as Egypt, Libya and Tunisia, are more susceptible to extremism and radicalisation. Were these countries discussed and was any action proposed?

David Cameron: I thank my hon. Friend for his support. As I said earlier, there was a discussion specifically about Mali, but there is more to be done to support democracy and the building blocks of democracy in countries such as Egypt and Libya. The EU, with its partnership and neighbourhood funds, has a role to play there.

Andrew Bridgen: Has my right hon. Friend received an apology from the shadow Chancellor, who, as we were reminded, said in the Chamber last October that the Government had failed to build the alliances needed to deliver a real-terms EU budget cut?

David Cameron: I am not sure the shadow Chancellor really does apologies, but it has been great to be cheered to the echo by him during today’s statement. I will not expect it every time, but it has been a pleasure.

Justin Tomlinson: As a business owner, when negotiating with suppliers I was always able to drive down costs when there was a clear alternative. On the same principle, was my right hon. Friend’s hand strengthened by the UK’s Eurosceptic stance ahead of the 2017 referendum?

David Cameron: There was an understanding, particularly among the net contributor countries, that it was time for proper budget discipline and that previously countries had gone to these MFF negotiations and not focused on the fact that if we were controlling our budgets at home, there was a case for doing it properly in Europe. I am delighted we were able to achieve that.

Therese Coffey: Today is indeed a triumph for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I congratulate him—also, I might say that his wife designs very nice handbags, albeit out of my price range. Does he agree with the shadow Chancellor, who told the Yorkshire Post:
	“If we allow ourselves…to be the ‘status quo party’ on Europe, or the ‘anti-referendum party’…we’ve got a problem,”
	and that
	“we would be pretty stupid to allow ourselves to get into either of those positions”?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes a very good point: we have a clear plan in place for sorting out reform in Europe and putting that reform to the British people. The accusation against us is that this could cause uncertainty, but the argument I would make is this. What could be greater uncertainty than Labour’s position? One minute the Opposition are in favour of a referendum and the next minute they are against it. They really have to sort out their position, come to the House and tell us what it is.

Andrew Stephenson: I am delighted to be the last hon. Member to offer my congratulations to the Prime Minister on securing such an historic victory in Europe. After an hour and a quarter of delivering his statement and answering questions in the Chamber, and given Labour’s woeful negotiating skills in Europe, can my right hon. Friend tell me whether we are any closer to knowing whether the Leader of the Opposition will be able to convince his MEPs to vote for this deal?

David Cameron: I do not think we are any closer to getting an answer. What we have heard though is good news. The Liberal Democrats will be voting for this budget in the European Parliament and the Conservatives will be voting for it in the European Parliament too. We now need to hear from the Labour party, not only about its own MEPs, but about socialists right across Europe. Labour should be convincing them.

Social Care Funding

Jeremy Hunt: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the funding of care and support in England.
	As we get older, none of us can have any way of knowing what care needs we will eventually face. Some will be blessed with a long and healthy life, but many others will be less fortunate. Today, many older people and people with disabilities face paying the limitless, often ruinous costs of their own care with little or no assistance from the state. Although those with assets of less than £23,250 receive support, those with assets above this level receive none. That is desperately unfair, particularly for those who have worked hard all their lives to pay off their mortgage, save for their future or have something to pass on to their loved ones, only to see their property sold and their savings wiped out. This is something that happens to more than 30,000 people every year or 100 people every day.
	The system we have also sends out the wrong message: that people are better off not saving for their future because any savings may only disappear in a puff of smoke. So today I can announce the Government’s radical plans to transform the funding of care and support in England—bringing a new degree of certainty, fairness and peace of mind to the costs of old age, disability and living with long-term conditions, while ensuring that the greatest level of financial support goes to those with the greatest need. We propose to introduce a cap on an individual’s financial contributions towards the cost of care and a significant increase in the level of assets a person may hold and still receive some degree of support from the state.
	In 2010, this Government asked economist Andrew Dilnot to look at the whole issue of funding for care and support. The independent Dilnot commission published its recommendations in July 2011. In response to those recommendations and following extensive engagement with the care and support sector, we published the care and support White Paper and the progress report on funding reform in July 2012. In the progress report, we accepted some of Andrew Dilnot’s main recommendations, including those for a consistent, nationally set eligibility threshold for care and support, and universal deferred payments, whereby no one will have to sell their home in their lifetime to pay for care costs. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Andrew and his team for their excellent work.
	A core principle set out by the Dilnot commission was that people should contribute to the costs of their own care, but those costs should be limited and protected against the potentially catastrophic costs of care. That should come through a cap on those costs and an extended means test. One person in 10 will be faced with care costs in excess of £100,000, with a small number facing costs significantly higher still. To give everyone peace of mind, from April 2017, we will introduce a cap on the amount that someone over state pension age will be liable to pay.
	The Dilnot commission’s original suggestion was for a cap of £25,000 to £50,000 in 2010-11 prices—the equivalent of £30,000 to £61,000 in April 2017 prices. Despite the extremely challenging economic situation
	in which we find ourselves, we have come as close to that range as possible. The cap will be set at £61,000 in 2010-11 prices or £75,000 once it is introduced in April 2017.
	The intention is not that people should have to pay up to £75,000 for their care costs, but that by creating the certainty that this is the maximum they will have to pay, they can then make provision through insurance or pension products so that they are covered up to the value of the cap, thereby reducing the risk of selling their home or losing an inheritance that they have worked hard to pass on to their family. Young people who already have care needs when they turn 18 will now receive free adult care and support when they reach 18. People who develop a care need after 18 but before state pension age will be protected by a cap that is below the £75,000 threshold.
	The other measure we propose is to increase significantly the amount of assets a person can hold and still receive financial support for their residential care home costs. Currently, this is set at £23,250. If a person has assets valued above this level, including in some circumstances the value of their home, they receive no support. The Dilnot commission recommended this threshold be raised dramatically to £100,000 in 2010-11 prices. We accept this recommendation.
	From April 2017, the threshold will be increased so that those with assets worth £123,000 or less, equivalent to Dilnot’s recommended level, will all receive some degree of financial support for their care costs. People with the fewest assets will receive the most support. This will, for the first time, provide financial protection for those with modest wealth, while ensuring that the poorest continue to have all or the majority of their costs paid.
	Everyone will benefit from the peace of mind that a cap will bring. The introduction of a cap and the extended means-tested support will help many people in the most challenging circumstances. We expect up to 16% of older people who need care to face costs of £75,000 or more—but, of course, none of us knows whether we will be in that 16%. Everyone will benefit from the peace of mind that these changes will bring, and by 2025 up to 100,000 more older people will receive financial support with their care costs as a result.
	The Chancellor and the Treasury have rightly insisted that we identify how we pay for the additional costs of these proposals. In this day and age, making promises that cannot be paid for makes those promises meaningless —so we have identified exactly how to pay for them. These reforms will cost the Exchequer £1 billion a year by the end of the next Parliament. With the agreement of the Chancellor, these will be met in part by freezing the inheritance tax threshold at £325,000 for a further three years from 2015-16. The Chancellor and the Chief Secretary have agreed that the remaining costs over the course of the next Parliament will be met from public and private sector employer national insurance contributions revenue associated with the end of contracting out as part of the introduction of the single-tier pension.
	These two new proposals join others previously announced when we published the draft care and support White Paper last summer, and they include from 2015 the ability of people to defer the payment of residential care costs so that no one need sell their own home to pay for them during their lifetime. Also from 2015, a
	national minimum eligibility threshold will be introduced to end the lottery of local access that can see support provided to someone in one area, but not in another. Taken together, today’s proposals and those already set out in the draft Care and Support Bill represent a new era of support for the elderly and disabled in England. Thanks to the certainty these proposals introduce, rather than people feeling they have to hoard every penny in case the very worst should happen, or that they are powerless and there is no point in saving at all, people will be able to plan and prepare sensibly for the future. They will be supported by a wider range of financial products becoming available in the market, which will be designed to help people to plan and prepare for their later years and to reassure them about how much they will pay. We will work with the care and support sector—with local authorities, charities, care providers and individuals—and with the financial services industry to develop the plans and introduce them practically.
	Our society is ageing. By 2030, the number of people over 85 will double, and the number of people with dementia will exceed 1 million. As the number of older people with such long-term conditions increases, we need to become a society in which people prepare and plan for their social care costs as much as they prepare and plan for their pensions. Sadly, that is an issue that Governments of all colours have long failed to tackle.
	While many other things need to be done to prepare for an ageing population, these reforms herald an historic change in the way in which care and support are funded. The economic circumstances are challenging, but these commitments demonstrate our determination to help people who have worked hard, saved, and done the right thing to prepare for the uncertain hand that fate deals all of us in old age. Because we are introducing these reforms within the time scale and at the thresholds set out, they will also be sustainable and consistent with our overriding priority, which is to reduce the deficit inherited from the last Government.
	We want our country to be one of the best places in the world in which to grow old. These plans will give certainty and peace of mind in regard to the cost of care, ensuring that we can all have the support that we need without facing unlimited costs, while also ensuring that the most support goes to those in the greatest need.
	I commend my statement to the House.

Andy Burnham: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, and for early sight of it. I agree with him that our current social care system in England is the worst of all possible worlds: a cruel lottery whereby people go into later life with everything for which they have worked on the roulette table, and the most vulnerable are always the biggest losers. That needs to change.
	The Secretary of State has tabled a modest plan that will make the system fairer than it is today, and we congratulate him on that. We welcome elements of what he has announced today. A cap of £75,000 will protect people from the catastrophic costs of care, and raising the means-test threshold will help more people on lower incomes to obtain some help with care charges. This is a step forward, but it is a faltering one. The House has been presented with a flawed prospectus today. Vulnerable people will still face rising care charges
	and homes will still be lost, notwithstanding valiant attempts to put the best possible spin on things in the weekend media. Yesterday the Deputy Prime Minister made the big claim that the Government were going to “crack” the care “conundrum”. Today, when we are faced with this meek package, that sounds suspiciously like overselling. Stephen Burke, the director of United for All Ages, has described the cap as
	“the dampest of damp squibs”.
	Yesterday, on The Andrew Marr Show, the Secretary of State said:
	“I've been hauled before the Speaker before and I wouldn’t want that to happen again and so I don’t want to go into the details.”
	Now that we have heard the details, perhaps the Secretary of State could explain on which part of his statement the media had not been pre-briefed. It is disappointing that the media rather than the House were briefed first on a statement that was of such importance to so many people. It is also disappointing that the Government have abandoned any effort to build a cross-party consensus before rushing to announce its proposals, and that they have chosen to rewrite the Dilnot report with figures of its own, breaking its careful logic.
	More specifically, there are four problems with what has been announced today, and I will address each in turn. First, it fails the fairness test. We will only have a durable solution if it can answer this question: will it help every person and every couple to protect what they have worked for, whatever their wealth and savings? I am afraid that the answer is no. According to Demos, a £35,000 cap would benefit about 3.2 million pensioners. A per-person cap of £75,000 will benefit just 1.4 million. For the average couple, the cap is £150,000. That might be enough to protect detached houses, but it will not protect the average semi-detached home in large parts of England.
	As Andrew Dilnot said today, the cap
	“is higher than we would have wanted —£11,000 higher than the top end of our range—and I regret that”.
	Will the Secretary of State confirm that people with modest to average homes and savings are not protected under his plan? Is this not a plan for the few and not the many, and further proof that we are not all in it together?
	The Secretary of State claims that insurance companies will step in with new products to help more people to protect their assets, but in evidence to the Health Committee, the Association of British Insurers said that it did not believe that the capped cost model would result in a market for pre-funded care insurance. So what further confidence can the Secretary of State give the House today that such a market will in fact emerge?
	Secondly, the plan is at best a partial solution. With this decision, the Government have prioritised the funding of a cap on care costs with new money, over and above addressing the crisis in council care budgets. Will the Secretary of State confirm that this was against the advice of Andrew Dilnot to the cross-party talks? In practice, it will mean that vulnerable people will continue to face rising charges, as councils put up fees to cope with the growing shortfall in their budgets, making it more likely that those people will, in time, have to pay right up to the new £75,000 cap. To many people, that will not feel like progress.
	More than £1.3 billion has been cut from local council budgets for older people’s care since the coalition came to power. Care charges are rising above inflation, and councils are warning that, by 2024, they will be overwhelmed by the costs of care. Does the Secretary of State accept that forecast, and if he does, how will the plans he has announced today help to address it? If he fails to face up to the current crisis in council funding, is it not the case that, with care charges rising, today’s announcement will feel like a con? It is true that the Government have raised the capital threshold, and I have said that we welcome that, but can the Secretary of State give the House any confidence that the extra support that people receive through a more generous means test will not be more than offset by increasing care charges caused by collapsing council budgets?
	What people might not know is that the cap reflects not what people actually pay for care but a local authority average, and that it does not include accommodation costs. That was not mentioned in the Secretary of State’s statement. Will not people feel conned if the Government do not make that clearer?
	The third problem is that this package disguises yet another coalition U-turn, this time on inheritance tax—[Interruption.] It is ironic, I must say. In 2007, a flagship pledge was made to increase the inheritance tax threshold to £1 million. Just eight weeks ago, the Chancellor said that he would increase the threshold in two years’ time. What has happened in the past two months to make him change his mind? Is not this the quickest coalition U-turn yet? The irony will not be lost on people that the Government are now increasing death taxes to pay for their plan. The Secretary of State has also said the rest will be made up from national insurance. Does he think it is fair to ask the working age population to pay for something else, rather than older people?
	Finally, the proposal fails to meet the scale of the challenge of the ageing society. It will not lead to more integration of care. Instead, it will entrench the separation between two separate systems: a free-at-the-point-of-use NHS and charged-for social care. Would it not have made more sense, rather than developing these piecemeal plans in isolation, to have set them out as part of a single vision for a sustainable health and care system in the 21st century? The Secretary of State has made progress, but he has missed an opportunity to produce a long-term plan that is fair to everyone and built on cross-party consensus. He has settled for a timid solution when what older people needed was a far bigger and bolder response.

Jeremy Hunt: Really! The right hon. Gentleman talked about a flawed prospectus, but what we had from the Labour Government during their 13 years in power was no prospectus whatever. This was in Labour’s manifesto in 1997, then the Government had a royal commission in 1999. There was a Green Paper in 2005, followed by the Wanless review in 2006. The problem was going to be solved in the comprehensive spending review of 2007, but then we had another Green Paper in 2009. Let us compare that with a coalition that commissioned a report the moment it came into office, said after a year that it accepted the principles of the report, and has now, just two years later, announced how it will implement it and pay for that implementation.
	Let me go through some of the things that the shadow Secretary of State has said. He quoted one stakeholder,
	Stephen Burke, but let us look at what some of the others have been saying. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has said that
	“the cap and threshold are welcome measures, and a welcome sign that the government is taking responsibility for addressing care funding.”
	Andrew Dilnot said today:
	“I recognise the public finances are in a pretty tricky state and it doesn’t seem to me that”—
	what the Government are proposing is—
	“so different from what we wanted”.
	Or we could talk about Age UK, which says it
	“has always supported the principle of a cap”
	and welcomes the fact that we are increasing what it describes as
	“the current miserly upper means test threshold”.
	A lot of stakeholders welcome today’s announcement, but recognise that we are in extremely difficult financial circumstances and that that is why we have to be responsible with public finances.
	The right hon. Gentleman talked about the cap of £75,000, which is indeed higher than the upper limit proposed by Andrew Dilnot, but to describe this as only helping people on higher incomes is fundamentally to misunderstand how a cap works. First, potentially more than 70% of the £1 billion a year that this will cost the Government by the end of the next Parliament is going to socially disadvantaged families. This is a highly progressive measure, and as well as increasing the cap we are increasing the threshold above which people do not get any help, from £23,000 to £123,000—exactly the kind of thing that some of the most disadvantaged families on the lowest of incomes will benefit from most.
	The right hon. Gentleman talks about the Association of British Insurers—he needs to get up to date. It describes this as
	“potentially another positive step forward in tackling the challenges of an ageing society.”
	[Interruption.] If he wants some more quotes, let us look at what financial services companies are saying. Aegon UK says it
	“welcomes today’s announcement and the clarity it brings on state support.”
	Legal & General says it is
	“pleased the Government has decided to move forward with Andrew Dilnot’s proposals.”
	As for local authority budgets—the shocking state of which, by the way, we inherited from the last Labour Government—the Government said in the spending review that the NHS health budget would give £7.2 billion of support for health-related needs to local authorities during the course of this Parliament.
	On inheritance tax, what the right hon. Gentleman does not understand about today’s measures is that fundamentally, they are helping people to protect their inheritance from the lottery of social care costs. The randomness of someone not knowing whether they will be the one in 10 who suffers over £100,000 in care costs is eliminated by a proposal that allows everyone to plan and prepare for their own social care costs.
	The right hon. Gentleman describes this as a modest plan and says we have neglected the scale of the problem. Of course, in dealing with an ageing population many other issues need to be dealt with. He talked about the problem of integration, which we are solving by devolving
	power to clinical commissioning groups on the front line, a reform that Labour opposed, and by integrating technology, a reform on which Labour failed. Also, Labour did nothing about dementia, leaving us with less than half the people with dementia being diagnosed. We are now tackling that problem. We saw last week the issues of treating older people with dignity and respect. We are tackling that problem—Labour left it for far too long.
	The problem is not that our solution is too small, but that it was too big for Labour to solve when they were in office. When it comes to making Britain a better country to grow old in, this Government are taking action where the last Government failed.

Stephen Dorrell: Does my right hon. Friend agree with the view expressed by Tony Blair to the Labour party conference in 1997 that it should be a priority for the British Government to sort out the unfairness that prevails in our system of care for the elderly? Does he further agree with me that when our right hon. Friend the Leader of the House was Health Secretary, he set up the Dilnot commission within weeks of this Government taking office, and that the package my right hon. Friend has announced today was described today by Andrew Dilnot as being not so different from the one recommended by the commission set up by our right hon. Friend?

Jeremy Hunt: I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend’s points; he speaks wisely, as ever. I, too, want to pay tribute to the work that my predecessor, our right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, did in laying the ground and making the big call that we needed to have the Dilnot commission, and in last year publishing the care and support White Paper, which moved this agenda much further forward than in any of the 13 years of the previous Labour Government. My right hon. Friend is also right about the fundamental randomness and unfairness. Of course, we are not saying that the Government will pay for all the social care costs we encounter—public finances could not possibly be in a state to allow that to happen. However, this provides certainty and allows people to plan, so that they can cope with the randomness and unfairness of the current system and know that it will not put their precious inheritance at risk.

Barbara Keeley: At £75,000 the cap on social care is far too high to help people in an area such as Salford. The Secretary of State has talked about insurance products developing to help people meet the costs of the cap. In our inquiry into social care, we on the Select Committee on Health were told that this country has no market at all in long-term care insurance—not only that, but no country in the world has a working market in pre-funded long-term care insurance. Is it not wishful thinking of the highest order to talk about people being able to rely on products that do not exist either here or anywhere else in the world?

Several hon. Members: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Many Members wish to get in, as this is a very important subject for all our constituents, so can we please have brief questions and short answers?

Jeremy Hunt: I am afraid that what the hon. Lady says sums up the attitude of the Opposition; they thought it was wishful thinking to try to solve this problem, whereas we are getting on with a solution. We do not have those financial products available at the moment, but the whole point of these structures is that we will help to create a market in which it is possible to have them. The point of the cap is to allow the hon. Lady’s constituents, even people on lower incomes, to plan and make provision, not only for costs of more than £75,000, but for any costs they have up to £75,000. In combination with that, we are increasing the threshold for Government support from £23,000 to £123,000.

Sarah Wollaston: I warmly welcome today’s statement, particularly the rise in the asset threshold, as I well remember my former patients’ shock when they realised that for anything over £23,250 they would have to meet their entire costs. However, may I ask the Secretary of State to look again at the impact there will be on rural local authorities, for example, Devon’s, which has the fifth oldest population in England?

Jeremy Hunt: I will certainly do that, and I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s comments. I would just say that it is in some of those areas with the highest proportion of older people that the impact of the current lottery in care provision is so dramatic and needs addressing so quickly. I therefore hope that her constituents will welcome the certainty in these proposals, but I will certainly look at and identify whether any particular issues are raised in rural areas.

Grahame Morris: The Minister has concentrated on the impact on the frail elderly, but does he recognise the other care crisis highlighted recently in a report published by four leading disability charities? What will these proposals do to assist in providing social care to working-age disabled people, who make up about a third of social care recipients? The shortfall we have estimated is about £1.2 billion—that is the gap between social care budgets and needs.

Jeremy Hunt: These proposals will go some way to addressing that problem. First, children who reach adulthood— the age of 18—with care costs will continue to receive the support they need without any qualification at all. Adults who become disabled during their working life will have a cap, but it will be a lower one. So we will be able to offer very important support to both those groups.

Andrew Percy: I welcome this statement as it moves the system on from where it is today. However, for a lot of communities the social care costs are so much more expensive, particularly in rural areas with very elderly populations, and they are more likely to hit that cap more quickly. So can my right hon. Friend assure us that everything will be done to ensure that the cost of care in these more expensive areas is brought down to something more in line with the rest of the country?

Jeremy Hunt: We think that these proposals will be particularly effective in such areas, because the higher the costs the sooner someone will reach the cap and the sooner they will get the support they need.

William McCrea: No one can deny that elderly and vulnerable people across the United Kingdom live in fear of having to go into care and what that would mean to them. This is not only about England; it is about the rest of the United Kingdom. So what discussions has the Secretary of State held with the devolved Administrations to ensure that our elderly citizens have certainty, fairness and peace of mind about the costs of old age, such as he claims his plan will bring?

Jeremy Hunt: This is a devolved matter, as the hon. Gentleman knows, but different approaches are being tried in all four constituent parts of the United Kingdom and we must look at what is happening in the different parts and all learn from each other.

John Pugh: I welcome the statement. Regardless of the details and figures announced today, does this overall approach not promise certainty and predictability where previously there was anxiety and uncertainty? Is that not the big gain?

Jeremy Hunt: That is the main point of what is being announced today. We are not able, with the public finances as they are, to offer a huge amount of support, but what we can do is give the certainty that means that for the first time people will be able to plan and make provision for their social care costs. We will be one of the first countries in the world that does that, which is why this is a very encouraging and very important day for people who care about the tremendous uncertainties associated with growing old.

Hazel Blears: The Alzheimer’s Society has said today that capping care costs is a step in the right direction, but a £75,000 cap is so high that it will help only the few. The Secretary of State knows that there are 800,000 people in this country living with dementia now, and his announcement today, however welcome it is, does not deal with the community care costs that those people face day to day. This costs a billion pounds in, but there is £1.3 billion out of community costs to local authorities. How will he fill that gap?

Jeremy Hunt: The right hon. Lady knows well the challenge and the crisis that we face because of dementia, and she has spoken movingly on the issue. What I would say about what the Alzheimer’s Society is saying is that to look at the cap in isolation is to misunderstand these proposals. For many people with dementia, the most significant thing will be the increase from £23,000 to £123,000 in the threshold at which they get state support. That is a big step forward.
	The cap is not saying that we expect people to pay £75,000 towards their care costs. We are saying that that is the maximum anyone will have to pay, which makes it possible for people to make provision in their pensions and in insurance policies. One in three of us will get dementia, and we do not know whether we will be among those one in three. This proposal will allow people to put some certainty in place—to make plans now, which means that when they are dealing with the nightmare of either themselves or someone in their family having to cope with dementia, they will not have the double whammy of having to worry about losing their house as well.

Julian Smith: Many older people across North Yorkshire have been waiting decades for this kind of certainty, so I thank the Secretary of State for bringing that to them. May I urge him to use his laser vision, which he has shown on this matter, to make health budgets and social budgets work much more closely together?

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: that is perhaps the biggest remaining issue that we have to face in the NHS and social care system today. There are interesting parts of the country, such as Torbay, where it is happening very effectively, but anything he can do in North Yorkshire to make it happen more speedily and more effectively will be very welcome.

Chris Bryant: Mining constituencies have some of the highest percentages of home ownership in the country, so this issue affects them. Further to the question asked by the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea), what discussions has the Secretary of State had with the Welsh Assembly, because I presume that there will be a Barnett consequential—money going to Wales as a result of today’s announcement? How much will that be?

Jeremy Hunt: All the Barnett consequential issues are decided by the Treasury, and we will of course comply with them.

Christopher Chope: Is it possible to have some transitional arrangements, because four years is a long time to wait for a family who are already paying care costs? Is it not possible to increase the capital allowance, for example by £20,000 a year, from now on? Is it not possible to allow care costs in excess of £75,000 to be set against future inheritance tax?

Jeremy Hunt: I understand where my hon. Friend is coming from. All I can say is that we had very strictly to produce a package that is affordable within the current financial constraints. For that reason, we have come up with the package we have. It is the earliest we think we can afford to do this and the lowest cap we think we can afford, but I will of course reflect on his comments.

Fiona Mactaggart: My question follows on from the previous one about what will happen between now and 2017. Many families are frightened about care costs and the statement has nothing for them. Their loved ones are likely to die in the next four years—2 million people will die before this is implemented. What is the Secretary of State doing additionally for local councils, which are trying to help people in that situation?

Jeremy Hunt: The hon. Lady might show a little humility after her Government did nothing about this for 13 years. We are doing something about it, as quickly as we possibly can.

Julian Lewis: I warmly welcome the rise in the assets threshold, but I am not clear about one aspect. People such as my father had to sell their home to pay the costs of residential care. It is being suggested that accommodation and food will not
	be covered by the proposals, but, given that the residential care aspect is so important, can my right hon. Friend give us reassurance?

Jeremy Hunt: These proposals cover the care costs, but we will be making an allowance for accommodation and food of £1,000 a month at 2017-18 prices. The reason for doing that is that a person would face those costs whether or not they were in a residential care home, and we think it would be wrong to create a system where that person was better off financially being in a residential care home than living at home.

Ian Lucas: Beveridge committed to “the cradle to the grave” as the principle in health care. It is clear today that the Government have given up on the public sector contributing to the pre-£75,000 figure. Has he any idea or has he inquired how much the cost of provision would be for a family to obtain cover for that first £75,000?

Jeremy Hunt: I think the hon. Gentleman needs to study these proposals with a great deal more care. If he had listened to them, he would know that we are extending dramatically the help available to people who have to pay up to £75,000, by increasing the threshold from £23,000 to £123,000 at 2017-18 prices.

Margot James: I warmly welcome the action that my right hon. Friend has taken today. To the critics who say that the cap should be lower, would he not say that the main purpose is to provide protection for those people who face catastrophic charges, which are roughly 10% to 15%? Is that not the main point? Does he agree further that this represents a fair resolution between the people’s responsibility to save for their retirement and the responsibilities of the community to protect those to whom catastrophic charges might apply?

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend, as so often on health matters, is absolutely right. This is about a partnership between the state and the citizen, recognising that the state is not able to bear all these costs on its own, and trying to create the incentives and the certainty whereby private citizens are able to make provision for their own social care costs in the way that they make provision for their pension and, as such, is a very important step forward.

Geraint Davies: These proposals mean that someone with a £200,000 house pays £75,000, and someone with a £400,000 house pays £75,000. Would it not be fairer if the first £200,000 was charged at, say, 20%, and the second £200,000 at 40%, so that someone with a £200,000 house would pay £40,000 and someone with a £400,000 house would pay £120,000, so that instead of a flat-rate charge, we would have a progressive charge within the financial envelope? Will the Secretary of State consider a fairer system, rather than a flat-rate poll tax?

Jeremy Hunt: People whose houses have lower value benefit from the fact that we are increasing the threshold at which support is available. Because of that increase in the threshold, they will get some support towards paying for their £75,000, which people with higher value houses will not get.

John Redwood: Does the Secretary of State see any difficulty in this coalition Government pre-empting a future Chancellor of the Exchequer over tax policy, when I thought everybody in the House wanted a different kind of Government after 2015, who might have their own ideas?

Jeremy Hunt: We have funded these proposals until 2020 on plans that have been agreed by the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives. We hope very much that we will have the support of the Opposition for these plans as well. Then we can have a national consensus around them, which is what we need because in the end, if we are to create that certainty in the markets, people need to know that whichever Government are elected, they support the basic approach that we are endorsing.

Eilidh Whiteford: These proposals will not apply in Scotland, where people already receive personal and nursing care as they need it, when they need it, regardless of their income. Is the Secretary of State aware that this approach has helped to reduce substantially the number of people requiring long-term hospital beds, has also helped to reduce NHS bed-blocking, and has enabled thousands of elderly, frail people in Scotland to live in their own homes, rather than face the crippling costs of moving into residential care?

Jeremy Hunt: There are some things that we can learn from Scotland and some things that we cannot learn. Scotland has a very good record in identifying people with dementia, and the point that the hon. Lady makes about helping people to live at home for longer is a very good one. Care costs incurred in domiciliary care for people who are living at home will count towards the £75,000 cap, so we hope to have many more flexible ways for people to provide for themselves and be able to live at home happily and healthily for longer.

Andrew Stephenson: I welcome today’s statement. Most welcome to my constituents will be the increase in the means-test threshold of state support from £23,000 to £123,000. Given that December’s figures from the Land Registry put the average house price in my constituency at only £114,000, will my right hon. Friend confirm that these proposals represent a very good deal for Pendle home owners, most of whom are on low incomes and of only modest wealth?

Jeremy Hunt: That is absolutely the point. The group of people we are targeting with these proposals are not the most vulnerable, because they already get all their care costs covered if their assets are less than £23,000, but the people one step up from that, who in many cases have worked hard, saved all their lives and paid off their mortgage, but have a house that is not of sufficient value to cover the social care costs they need. I hope that these proposals will be very welcome in Pendle.

Pat Glass: Can the Secretary of State assure me and my constituents that any gains they may make from his proposals will not be completely wiped out by the massive cuts to local authority care budgets—£120 million this year alone in my own local authority?

Jeremy Hunt: We have looked very carefully at the cuts that local authorities are facing in England in order to make sure that that should not compromise adult social care. They are not ring-fenced budgets. That is why we put in an extra £7.2 billion of support from the Department of Health’s budget where there are health-related needs. We are watching this very carefully throughout the country.

Philip Hollobone: People in my constituency will want to congratulate the Secretary of State on grasping this nettle. Can he confirm that after 2017 there will be some kind of index-linking on the liability cap and the asset threshold? Is there now an implied permanent link between the yield from inheritance tax and the nation’s social care costs?

Jeremy Hunt: I do not think that there is an implied link in the way that my hon. Friend suggests, but I will reflect on his comment to check that I fully understood his brilliant insight. Automatic indexation is of course a matter for future Governments and future Parliaments, but it is certainly our intention that the proposals we are making will continue to take account of changes in the cost of living.

Barry Gardiner: I welcome aspects of the Secretary of State’s statement. Does he agree that the security in old age that he is seeking to put in place will not be effective for as long as companies such as Phoenix Life are able to offer people like my constituent, Mr Gerard Burton, £221 a month for the rest of his life, at the age of 84, in return for half his house? Will the Secretary of State speak to his colleagues in the Treasury to ensure that there is great scrutiny of precisely what financial products are being offered in this domain?

Jeremy Hunt: I do not know the details that the hon. Gentleman is talking about, but I would be happy to speak to Treasury colleagues about that issue.

Nick Gibb: This statement will be very welcome in my constituency, which has a very high proportion of retired and elderly people. May I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on gripping a problem that has eluded previous Governments? Can he confirm that the new higher savings threshold of £123,000 will not include the value of a couple’s home when the spouse or dependant of the person in residential care still resides in that home?

Jeremy Hunt: I can absolutely confirm that, yes.

Diana Johnson: On the financial products that will be available, will the Secretary of State produce evidence so that constituents in Hull can find out what kind of figures we are talking about as regards their protecting themselves for the future?

Jeremy Hunt: I am making the announcement today, so we have to give the financial services industry some time to respond to the proposal. However, the indications are encouraging, and I think that we will all see, in plenty of time for the 2017 start of this plan, what products are available. There may be separate products,
	but it may also be something that becomes part of people’s pension planning. In the same way that people decide what arrangements they want in their pension for an annuity and for a lump sum payment, payment towards these costs up to the level of the cap may become another part of the pension plan. We need to let the pension and insurance industries have the time to respond and to come up with these plans.

Paul Burstow: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in evaluating these proposals, the public need to understand the nasty little secret at the heart of social care in this country, which is that we have among the harshest of means tests and that that leads to people facing catastrophic costs? Will he also ensure, in making these reforms, that he provides the Joint Committee examining the draft Care and Support Bill with all the necessary details of how this will be implemented?

Jeremy Hunt: I would be happy to do that and I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman’s Committee for its work to date on pre-legislative scrutiny. He will understand why I was not able to go into details when we met to discuss the Bill last week. He is absolutely right: dealing with that threshold is one of the most important things and I am sure we will benefit from good scrutiny, as we have done to date.

Julie Hilling: I want clarity about what the costs include. My mother’s journey has involved eight months in residential care and she is now back home where carers visit her four times a day. Would either of those count towards the eventual £75,000 cap?

Jeremy Hunt: Yes, they would.

Julie Hilling: Both?

Jeremy Hunt: Yes.

Alun Cairns: I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for the significant progress he has made on this issue, which was ignored for so long by the Labour party. The shadow Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), has called for a bigger and bolder response. What estimate has my right hon. Friend made of the potential costs of a bigger and bolder response, and does he not think that any such criticism should have allied to it a source of funding in order for it to have any credibility?

Jeremy Hunt: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. The shadow Health Secretary complained this morning that we have not adopted the precise cap that Andrew Dilnot said he would have liked. That would have cost an extra £2.4 billion a year by 2020, on top of the plans that we have announced. It is up to the Opposition to tell us how they would find that money if that is what they want to happen.

Stephen McCabe: Is it not likely that the decline in domiciliary services will accelerate to the point at which people are forced to enter residential care? Has the Health Secretary factored those rising costs into his calculations?

Jeremy Hunt: The care costs that people have at their home will be included in the amount calculated towards the cap, so what we are hoping for is the opposite—that this proposal will lead to an expansion of domiciliary services. I think that people will welcome that. At the heart of controlling our social care costs, both financially and on a human level, is a structure that allows more people to live at home, happily and healthily, for longer than is currently the case.

Jason McCartney: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, to be credible on social care funding, any package needs to be fully funded, unlike yet more random, pie-in-the-sky, unfunded spending commitments?

Jeremy Hunt: Absolutely. There was a time when the Labour party would have considered a package that will be worth £1 billion a year by the end of the next Parliament to be a significant investment, but after its free spending ways of a billion here and a billion there, we are now talking real money.

Charlie Elphicke: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on a meaningful step forward in the social care debate, with a proper settlement? The shadow Health Secretary made a spending commitment of a £35,000 cap; for the record, how much would that spending commitment cost the country?

Jeremy Hunt: What the shadow Secretary of State said this morning would have cost the country an extra £2.4 billion on top of the proposals that we are outlining today. Labour Members need to say whether they would pay for that by increasing taxes or by reducing spending, but perhaps they are thinking of adding to the deficit.

Martin Vickers: I, too, welcome my right hon. Friend’s announcement and the progress he has made. However, he will be aware that in a constituency such as Cleethorpes, which I represent and where a terraced house can cost less than £75,000, vulnerable and elderly people will still be concerned about the figures that are being tossed around. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that his Department passes the information to local authorities and local organisations that advise such people, in the hope that they can clearly understand the commitments?

Jeremy Hunt: We will be happy to do that. I think that my hon. Friend’s constituents will value the fact that the horrifically low threshold of £23,000, beyond which they get no help at all, will be raised significantly to the £100,000 threshold, in 2010-11 prices, that Andrew Dilnot recommended. Under the draft Care and Support Bill, all local authorities will be obliged to give a care assessment and access to financial advice to everyone in their area in order to make sure that constituents such as those of my hon. Friend are given the information they need.

Glyn Davies: I, too, greatly welcome the framework for social care that the Secretary of State outlined in his statement. The Barnett consequentials should mean an extra £10 million for Wales if the proposal costs about £1 billion. What
	discussions has he had with the Welsh Government to encourage them at least to invest the Barnett consequentials in social care, given that it is as big a problem in Wales as it is in England?

Jeremy Hunt: I have had no discussions on that point. I will first establish what the Barnett consequentials of the announcement are. I would then be happy to talk to my hon. Friend.

Horsemeat (Food Fraud)

Owen Paterson: I would like to update the House on recent developments with regard to horsemeat and food fraud.
	The events that we have seen unfold over the past few days in the UK and Europe are completely unacceptable. Consumers need to be confident that food is what it says on the label. It is outrageous that consumers have been buying products labelled beef, which turn out to contain horsemeat. The Government are taking urgent action with the independent Food Standards Agency, the industry and our European partners.
	Let me turn first to the facts. On 15 January, the FSA was notified by the Food Safety Authority of Ireland of the results of its survey of processed beef products on the Irish market. The Irish study identified trace amounts of horse and pig DNA in the majority of the sample, but identified one product, a Tesco burger, where there was evidence of flagrant adulteration with horsemeat. The investigations in Ireland are ongoing.
	On 16 January, in order to investigate the implications for the UK market, the FSA announced a four-point plan. That included telling implicated food businesses to test their processed beef products and the launch of a full scientific study of processed beef products on the UK market.
	On 31 January, the Prison Service of England and Wales notified the Food Standards Agency that traces of pork DNA had been found in a selection of meat pies labelled as halal. Although trace contamination does not necessarily indicate fraudulent activity, any contamination is clearly of concern to faith communities. The affected products were quarantined and the contracts suspended.
	On 4 February, the FSA announced that it had tested a consignment of frozen meat that was being stored at Freeza Meats in Northern Ireland for horse DNA. That consignment had been detained by the local authority in October 2012 because of labelling irregularities. The consignment is under the secure control of the local authority. None of the consignment has entered the food chain and so no recall is necessary. As part of the investigation, Newry and Mourne local authority has tested current products from Freeza Meats and neither horse nor pig DNA has been found in any of those products. The FSA is undertaking a detailed investigation, which includes following the supply chain of Freeza Meats and any other producers that are implicated.
	On the evening of 6 February, Findus informed the Food Standards Agency that it had confirmation of horsemeat in frozen beef lasagne products. The lasagne were produced in Luxembourg by a French company, Comigel, with the meat supplied by another French company, Spanghero. The test results were supplied to the FSA on the morning of 7 February. The FSA is investigating the case urgently in liaison with the French authorities and the police. The FSA has assured me that it currently has no evidence to suggest that the products recalled by Findus represent a food safety risk. The 7 February announcement that very significant amounts of horsemeat had been found in Findus lasagne moved the issue from one of trace contamination to one of either gross negligence or criminality.
	On 8 February, Aldi withdrew two beef products after its tests found that they contained horsemeat. The products were supplied by Comigel, the same company that supplied Findus. Asda and Tesco also withdrew products from the same suppliers on a precautionary basis.
	Food regulation is an area of European competence. Under the European legal framework, main responsibility for the safety and authenticity of food lies with those who produce, sell or provide it to the customer. In the UK, the Food Standards Agency was set up by the previous Government as an independent agency, and I have sought to respect its independence. It leads the operational response, and I am today updating the House on progress with its investigations and on the action I have been taking with the industry and European counterparts. I have made clear my expectation that food businesses do whatever is necessary to provide assurances to consumers that their products are what they say they are.
	The Minister of State and the FSA met food retailers and suppliers on 4 February and made it clear that we expect the food industry to publish results of its own testing of meat products to provide a clearer public picture of standards in the food chain. In response to the Findus announcement of 7 February, the FSA asked in addition that all producers and retailers test all their processed beef products for the presence of horsemeat. On Saturday 9 February I called in the major food retailers, manufacturers and distributors to make clear my expectation that they verify and trace the source of all their processed beef products without delay.
	At that meeting with the British Retail Consortium, the Food and Drink Federation, the British Meat Processors Association, the Federation of Wholesale Distributors, the Institute of Grocery Distribution and individual retailers, I made it clear that I expected to see from them the following: meaningful results from testing by the end of this week; more testing of products for horse along the supply chain and that the industry co-operates fully with the FSA on that; publication of industry test results every three months through the FSA; and that they let the FSA know as soon as they become aware of a potential problem in their products. I made it very clear that there must be openness and transparency in the system for the benefit of consumers, and that retailers and processors must deliver on those commitments to reassure their customers.
	Let me reiterate: immediate testing of products will be done across the supply chain, including suppliers to schools, hospitals and prisons as well as retailers. The FSA issued advice to public service providers on Sunday 11 February in advance of the working week. I also reiterate that the FSA has assured me that it currently has no evidence to suggest that recalled products represent a food safety risk. The chief medical officer’s advice is that even if bute is found to be present at low levels, there is a very low risk that it would cause any harm to health. People who have bought Findus beef lasagne products are advised not to eat them and return them to the shop they bought them from as a precaution.
	The ultimate source of these incidents is still being investigated, but it is already clear that we are dealing with Europe-wide supply networks. I am taking action to ensure effective liaison with the European Commission and other member states, and I have been in touch with
	Irish Minister Simon Coveney on several occasions since 28 January. I have spoken to him twice again today and have also spoken to European Commissioner Borg, the French Minister Stéphane Le Foll and Romanian Minister Daniel Constantin. I emphasised the need for rapid and effective action, and I am grateful for the good co-operation there has already been.
	I have agreed with Minister Coveney that there will be an urgent meeting with Commissioner Borg of Ministers from the member states affected. In addition we agreed that this issue will be on the agenda of the Agriculture Council on 25 February. At the moment this appears to be an issue of fraud and mislabelling, but if anything suggests the need for changes to surveillance and enforcement in the UK we will not hesitate to make those changes. Once we have established the full facts of the current incidents and identified where enforcement action can be taken, we will want to look at the lessons to be learned from this episode. I will make a further statement about that in due course.
	In conclusion, I want to reiterate that I completely understand why people are so concerned about this issue. It is unacceptable that they have been deceived in this way. There appears to have been criminal activity in an attempt to defraud the consumer. The prime responsibility for dealing with this lies with retailers and food producers who need to demonstrate that they have taken all necessary actions to ensure the integrity of the food chain in this country. I am in daily contact with the FSA. This week I will be having further contact with European counterparts and I will be meeting the food industry again, together with the FSA, tomorrow. I commend this statement to the House.

Mary Creagh: I thank the Secretary of State for an advance copy of his statement. Four weeks ago, the Irish authorities alerted the UK Government that they had discovered horsemeat in burgers stocked by UK supermarkets, including Tesco, Iceland and Lidl. Last Monday, we discovered that meat labelled as halal and served in UK prisons had tested positive for pig DNA. On Thursday, the scandal spread from frozen burgers to frozen ready meals, as we discovered that Findus beef lasagne contained up to 100% horsemeat. On Friday, this incompetent Secretary of State and his food Minister went home—[Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Everybody wants to make their contribution, and the only way they will is by being a little quieter. People may not like what is being said, but they should at least have the courtesy to listen.

Mary Creagh: On Friday, No. 10 told the press that the Secretary of State was working hard at his desk, getting a grip on this crisis. But in fact he had to be called back to London from his long weekend—crisis, what crisis? Until Saturday’s panic summit, he had not actually met the food industry to address this crisis. The food Minister had met with the food industry just once, exactly a week ago.
	On Friday, I received information that three British companies were involved, potentially, in importing beef that actually contained horse. I wrote to the Secretary of State, offering to share the information with him.
	I also handed it to the Serious Organised Crime Agency. On Friday, the FSA said that the police were involved, so I was reassured. However, on Friday night the Met police said that they had had talks with the FSA, but that there was no live criminal investigation. On Saturday, after a conversation with one of the food industry representatives, I realised that the Secretary of State had not revealed the names of those firms to the food industry at the meeting. Why not? If the Government want the food industry to test on the basis of risk, why did the Secretary of State not share the names of those companies at Saturday’s meeting?
	On Thursday, DEFRA announced its statutory testing regime, with 28 local councils purchasing and testing eight samples each. Does the Secretary of State seriously expect people to wait 10 weeks for the results? Can he confirm that that will be the first survey of product content that his Department has carried out since his Government removed compositional labelling from the Food Standards Agency in 2010? He talks about the FSA’s operational independence, but it is not responsible for the content of our food—he is. When will he stop hiding behind civil servants and take some responsibility? Does he think that surveying just 224 products from across the country matches the scale of this scandal, when he has asked the supermarkets to test thousands of their products by Friday? Can he confirm today to the House that not all of those thousands of tests will be completed by Friday?
	Can the Secretary of State tell the House how many products the large public sector catering suppliers will test and how many lines the members of the British Meat Processors Association will test? In his letter to me last Friday, he stated that some members of the British Hospitality Association and the British Retail Consortium have withdrawn products as a precaution. Can he tell the House which members have withdrawn which products, and whether any of them supplies schools, prisons and hospitals? The supermarkets have acted with speed and a degree of transparency on this that puts him to shame. I am disappointed that the hospitality industry and caterers have not been as candid.
	In his letter to me, the Secretary of State said that the FSA is taking up individual suspicious incidents with authorities and the police across Europe. He said in the media this weekend that there is an international criminal conspiracy at work. Does he think that international criminals are present everywhere in Europe apart from in the United Kingdom? The French Government estimate that the Findus fraud alone has netted criminals €300,000. This is clearly big criminal business. Why have the UK police not investigated on the basis of the intelligence supplied? Has he had the full results of the tests carried out by the Irish authorities?
	At Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions nearly three weeks ago, I asked the food Minister about horses contaminated with bute slaughtered in the UK and entering the human food chain. It has now been confirmed that of the nine UK horses that tested positive for bute, one was stopped, five went to France, two to the Netherlands and one to the UK. However, when council officials approached the people who had supposedly taken the horse to eat it, they had no knowledge of what had happened to it.
	There has been talk of an EU import ban, but has the Secretary of State considered the possibility that horses are going to UK and Irish abattoirs and entering the food chain in the UK? Which horse abattoirs in the UK are on the FSA’s cause for concern list? Have any horses presented for slaughter in the past month been rejected by officials because of concerns over their passports? If so, where and how many?
	The Ulster Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has clear evidence of illegal trade in unfit horse from Ireland to the UK for meat, with horses being re-passported to meet demand for horsemeat in mainland Europe. It says that there are currently 70,000 horses unaccounted for in Northern Ireland. Unwanted horses are being sold for €10 and sold on for meat for €500—a lucrative trade. It is convenient to blame the Poles and Romanians, but so far neither country has found any problems with its beef abattoirs.
	When will the Secretary of State get his story straight on bute? This horse medicine is banned from the food chain for a reason. On Friday, he said:
	“I would have no hesitation at all in eating these products.”
	Yet on Sunday he said that this food could be injurious to human health. The Health Secretary said it is just a labelling issue. Is this not symptomatic of the Government’s dangerous complacency?
	I note the chief medical officer’s advice to people this morning. What levels of bute have to be present in the meat for it to be a human health risk? Will the Secretary of State tell us what the safe limits of bute consumption for human beings are, given that it is banned from the human food chain? The British public must have confidence that the food they buy is correctly labelled, legal and safe. When Ministers came to the Commons to answer my urgent question on 17 January, the food Minister said:
	“It is important that neither the hon. Lady nor anyone else in this House talks down the British food industry.”—[Official Report, 17 January 2013; Vol. 556, c. 1027.]
	These invisible regulatory services protect our consumers and our food industry, and allow it to export all over the world. [Interruption.] I think Government Members would do well to listen as this issue is of interest to their constituents and the lack of information from their Government has been nothing short of a disgrace.
	This weekend consumer confidence in British food was sinking like a stone. Food is a £12 billion industry that supports hundreds of thousands of UK jobs and exports. In common with No. 10, it is rapidly losing faith in this Secretary of State’s ability to lead them through this crisis.

Owen Paterson: You would not think that we had inherited Labour’s system would you, Mr Deputy Speaker? You really wouldn’t. I always admire the hon. Lady—she really has a nerve.
	This issue is a European competence. As agreed by her Government, the independent Food Standards Agency was set up and we have followed their policy of respecting that independence. Today, I talked to its chairman, Lord Rooker, whom she knows well, and he agreed that we had respected its independence. In the early stages of this history, this was an issue of trace DNA in an Irish abattoir. Once it came to the Findus case, where there was a significant volume of horse material, it took on
	a whole new dimension. He agreed that it was then appropriate that the Secretary of State should become publicly involved, as I have been in recent days. The hon. Lady is critical of the FSA’s survey—on which I wish it well. I raised it with the noble Lord this afternoon, and he agreed that April was the intended end date for these results, but that he could possibly publish some of them as he works through.
	The hon. Lady completely misses the point that the retailers are responsible for the quality and content of their food. That is laid down in European law. Her Government passed a statutory instrument in 2002. [Interruption.] There is no point in the hon. Lady shouting. She must understand that under the current arrangements it is for retailers to decide. She has completely missed the point that they are responsible for testing, they are responsible for the integrity of their food and they are responsible to their customers. They have a massive self-interest in this, because obviously they want their customers to come back. She will be pleased to hear that we had a most satisfactory meeting on Saturday, and they will be bringing forward meaningful results by the end of this week.
	The hon. Lady went on a bit about the police. [Interruption.] I agree with my hon. Friends that she went on and on about the police. This is a serious issue, and the FSA has raised it with the Metropolitan police, but the hon. Lady must understand that until there is a criminal action in this country, they cannot take action. However, the FSA has been in touch with Europol, because it does look as though there have been criminal cases on the continent.
	The hon. Lady mentioned the Irish test. I have had a conversation this afternoon with Minister Coveney. We have agreed that there will be protocol between our two independent agencies to agree testing equivalents and to work extremely closely together, because our two food industries so often work in co-operation on either side of the Irish sea.
	The hon. Lady mentioned horses. Today, Lord Rooker will announce that further to our recent announcement that all horses slaughtered in this country will be tested for bute, no carcase will be released until it has been proven positive.
	Finally, the advice on food is very simple. I have been completely consistent. It must have been in an interview and I think she mis-heard the second part of a sentence when I was speaking. I have been absolutely clear. The independent agency that gives professional advice is the Food Standards Agency. I, the hon. Lady, hon. Members and the public should follow its advice. As long as products are free for sale and have not been recommended for withdrawal by the FSA, they are safe for human consumption. I recommend that she follows the advice of the independent agency that her Government set up.

Anne McIntosh: Is it not absolutely right that this is a European problem that requires a European solution? This contaminated meat should never have entered the UK food chain. It now appears that the Romanian authorities did not do the product and labelling checks before the contaminated food left Romanian shores. Will my right hon. Friend please assure us that he will confirm, with both the Commission and the Romanian Minister, that these product checks are in place and that no further consignment
	should be admitted into this country until we know it is as marked on the label? Will he also look to the European food labelling regulations, articles 7 and 8, that permit precautionary temporary measures to be put in place to save our retailers from this expense? Will he also ask the FSA why it did not commence inspections when it was told that the Irish FSA was doing so in November last year?

Owen Paterson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, for her question. Commissioner Borg made it clear to me today that there were no grounds for banning imports on mislabelling or fraud, and that that could happen only if human safety might be imperilled. I have also spoken to Minister Constantin in Romania, who was very emphatic on this point—we have to be fair to all countries involved. He made it quite clear to me—I am happy to share this with the House—that the two main named abattoirs, one of which only deals with horsemeat, shipped products that were correctly labelled. Horsemeat was shipped and it was labelled as horsemeat. I therefore think that this case has some distance further to travel, and we should not jump to conclusions, which is why I am pleased that my discussions with Minister Coveney have led to an agreement that the Agriculture Ministers of the half dozen countries concerned will meet. We all want to get to the bottom of this.

Ben Bradshaw: The Secretary of State says that there is no evidence of criminal activity in this country, but may I remind him that inaccurate labelling is illegal? Why has it taken him more than three weeks to summon the retailers and four weeks to come to the House? Given that the highly respected Chair of the Select Committee said on the “Today” programme on Friday that she would not eat processed beef products, why is he still recommending that people do?

Owen Paterson: The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that inaccurate labelling is an offence. At the moment, we have to establish exactly what is in these materials and who is responsible for the label. In the Findus case, that material has been withdrawn.

Neil Parish: We have the red tractor and other farm assurance schemes that guarantee that meat from those sources is guaranteed through to processed product. May I urge the Secretary of State to urge people to eat that type of meat, which is completely traceable? Finally, Europe has been far too lax on this type of meat processing for many years, so we need a tightening up across the whole of Europe in order to know exactly what we are eating.

Owen Paterson: I am entirely happy to recommend to all consumers in this country that they buy good British products in which they can have faith. We have extraordinarily rigorous processes for traceability and production systems, so I have total confidence in British products and strongly recommend them to the British consumer.

Barry Gardiner: Will the Secretary of State explain why companies such as Tesco can consistently reject entire consignments of our farmers’
	fruit and veg for being misshapen—at the cost of the farmer—yet have not focused the same attention on processed meat in their own lines, because it is not at the front of the freezer and does not affect the appearance? Will he ensure that in future the FSA has in perpetuity statutory powers to instruct retailers to carry out tests on their entire product lines consistent with the volume of product being shifted over the year?

Owen Paterson: Unlike the last Government, we have set up a groceries adjudicator, which answers the hon. Gentleman’s first question. On the second one, he will be pleased to hear that at Saturday’s meeting we agreed that retailers would carry out this testing, which will have meaningful results by the end of the week. Further to that, however, I want these results published on a regular basis—every three months.

Laurence Robertson: May I express my entire confidence in how my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has dealt with this issue? Does it not raise a further point, however, which is that British farmers are handicapped when trying to compete with food producers from countries that not only do not carry out the appropriate checks, but have much lower animal welfare standards than we do?

Owen Paterson: My hon. Friend is right. It is a scandal that, despite our egg producers last year conforming to the enriched cages directive, and despite the fact that again this year we were 100% up because we were the first out of the traps to end tethering, some major European countries have still not conformed. I raised that point with Commissioner Borg at our last Council meeting and wrote to him about it last week.

Mary Glindon: Will the Secretary of State guarantee that cuts to the FSA and the introduction of the self-regulatory hazard analysis and critical control points system will not compromise, and never has compromised, meat hygiene inspections and the ability to ensure that meat is legal and safe?

Owen Paterson: The hon. Lady, having read out a Whips’ handout, has unwittingly touched on an incredibly important question. The whole issue concerns a paper-based system that places too much faith in the accuracy of the paper recording what might be in the pallet or consignment, so she is absolutely right to raise the question of testing. I briefly discussed this point with Commissioner Borg today and have discussed it with the noble Lord Rooker. I would like to see more random testing of products halfway through the process, so she is on the button—it is a most important point.

Glyn Davies: Does my right hon. Friend agree that prime responsibility must lie with the retailers, and that retailers should use some of their vast profits to ensure product quality and guarantee that their products are exactly what they say they are?

Owen Paterson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Consumers must have faith in the products provided by the retailers. It is the retailers’ responsibility to present consumers with goods that are wholesome, of quality and
	conform to the label. It is important that the retailers get out there and sell their systems and products in a way that keeps the faith of the consumer.

Tom Watson: I am sure that the Secretary of State would agree that Findus still has serious questions to answer. In particular, exactly when did the company have a reasonable suspicion that the supply chain was contaminated and who took the decision not to enact an immediate product recall? Ultimate responsibility lies with the man at the top—in this case, Manhattan-based private equity investor Dale Morrison. Does he agree that it is shameful that he has not flown to the UK immediately to tackle this problem or issued a word of contrition?

Owen Paterson: I talked to the UK chief executive of Findus on Saturday afternoon, but I think we have to be cautious about what we say, because I understand that Findus might launch legal proceedings against Comigel and possibly Spanghero. The important point, however, is that I made it clear at our meeting on Saturday that from now on, the minute that any food business has evidence that there might be something untoward in a product or that something might not conform, it must tell the FSA immediately, and that as soon as that evidence is corroborated by a scientifically valid laboratory test, the product should be withdrawn very publicly. I made it clear to the retailers that I would strongly support any withdrawal on those grounds.

Cheryl Gillan: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his decisive action in this matter. Quite rightly, his priority should be the safety of consumers and restoring confidence in our great British food industry. He knows, however, that the national equine database was closed down last December. What assessment has he made of the impact of that closure on the Department’s ability to keep track of horses in the UK, and is he confident that the current systems available to him enable his Department to keep a track on equine movements and locations?

Owen Paterson: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for her comments. She is right to raise the issue of equine databases. We have absolute confidence that we have access to all the information contained in the various ones around the country, and we are also very clear that the significant statement today by the noble Lord Rooker—that every single horse carcase will be held until it is proved clear—will be of great reassurance to the British consumer.

Chi Onwurah: Highly processed foods of this kind are more likely to form a larger part of the diets of low-income families—of which there are far too many in Newcastle thanks to this Government’s actions. Is the Secretary of State seriously saying that when someone in Blakelaw buys a burger, they need to research the entire supply chain, rather than relying on the Government and the Secretary of State?

Owen Paterson: This is a serious misunderstanding. The hon. Lady must understand that under this system it is the retailers who are responsible. It is for the retailers to get out there and show their customers that their processed
	beef products are sound, that they have increased random testing and that these products are completely clear. It is for the retailers to prove that they can reassure their customers.

Roger Williams: Illegal meat trading is one of the most profitable criminal activities, with limited penalties. Replacing dear beef with cheap horsemeat enables huge profits to be made. Does the Secretary of State agree that the active involvement of Europol is essential to break up the complex criminal food chains that have been set up to take advantage of our consumers?

Owen Paterson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Sadly, there is significant money to be made from this criminal activity. It is a fraud on the public. It is absolutely wrong that a British consumer should go to a retail outlet and buy a product marked “processed beef” and find later that it contains horsemeat. It is a straight fraud. It is criminal activity. We are absolutely determined to bear down on it, working with our European partners to stop it, and I am delighted that the FSA is working closely with Europol.

William McCrea: Northern Ireland, like the rest of the United Kingdom, produces first-class meat products, but this meat scandal has seriously damaged public confidence in the safety of our food and is depressing an industry that is already struggling because of weather conditions. Does the Secretary of State agree that the only way to restore confidence is to find out who has engaged in this illegal activity, put them out of business and bring them before the courts?

Owen Paterson: I wholeheartedly concur with the hon. Gentleman’s sentiments. This is a fraud on the public. It is wrong for them to be presented with a product and find out later that it is not what is claimed. There is no health issue here; this is an issue of fraud and labelling. With reference to his previous question, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we have to get the perpetrators—these criminals—and stop this practice.

Bill Wiggin: The Irish Food Safety Authority has been ahead of the Food Standards Agency every step of the way. The people I am concerned about are the British beef producers. Nobody seems to care about them. They have seen their products replaced by poor fakes. What is the Secretary of State going to do about it and how are these poor, besmirched people going to get their market share back?

Owen Paterson: I would like to correct my hon. Friend a little. The reason the Irish agency picked up this issue in the Irish plant was that it had local intelligence that there was a problem. That is why it did a random check —I cleared that with Minister Coveney today. As far as I am concerned, my hon. Friend will find no stauncher supporter of British beef than the Secretary of State standing before him. We have splendid cattle, rigorous traceability systems, strictly run abattoirs and a splendid finished product.

Eilidh Whiteford: I think we have all been shocked by these unacceptable failures in our food supply chain. Does the Secretary of
	State agree that one way we can be absolutely sure what is on our plates is to buy Scotch beef—quality assured and fully traceable—preferably from a local butcher, and not least that which is produced in Banff and Buchan?

Owen Paterson: The hon. Lady is absolutely right. I talked to her Minister, Richard Lochhead, only yesterday. She may be a great advocate of locally produced Scottish beef, and I may be a great advocate of British beef—or Shropshire beef—but she is absolutely right that British consumers should have faith in locally produced food.

William Cash: I am sure my right hon. Friend will be glad to know that many of us want to know whether the European Commission is being held accountable under the EU’s food and labelling regulations, which include specific notification of the species of the animal used in food. Will he assure us that all necessary actions and discussions are being pursued with Commissioner Borg to ensure that those with the legal obligations to audit these matters—including the directorate, under him, of the food and veterinary office—comply with EU standards?

Owen Paterson: My hon. Friend is absolutely spot-on to recognise the key role of the Commissioner, as this is a European competence, and that is why I spoke to him today. I am pleased to record that he was extraordinarily co-operative. We are going to fix up a meeting—at very short notice—with him and the key Agriculture Ministers some time this week. The point my hon. Friend raises is definitely one that I will make clear to the Commissioner at that meeting.

Stephen McCabe: Even allowing for the Secretary of State’s rather laid-back approach, does he not think it might have been smarter to advise that guidance be issued to schools and hospitals a little earlier than 10 o’clock last night?

Owen Paterson: I am sorry the hon. Gentleman is unhappy with my demeanour. I am as active as I think he will find is necessary on this issue, having been at it for many, many days now. More importantly, the advice that the FSA has given to suppliers to schools, hospitals and prisons—it is exactly the same as that given to retailers—is clear. Unless the FSA recommends that a product be withdrawn, the public, schoolchildren, prisoners and those in hospitals should have faith in the product.

Caroline Nokes: Phenylbutazone is an incredibly common, but useful drug to all horse owners. The presence of a verifiable, accurate and up-to-date horse passport is no guarantee whatever that a horse has not been given bute. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the only way to check that a carcase is bute-free is to test it?

Owen Paterson: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct about that. That is why the FSA has today announced the new regime. Not only are all carcases being tested, but from today, not one carcase will be released until it is proven to be clear.

Nia Griffith: The Secretary of State says that retailers and food processors have prime responsibility for the content of their products. Nevertheless, the public feel that the Government have a responsibility to ensure enforcement of accurate labelling. His Government did away with responsibility for labelling of food content back in 2010. Can he now explain how it is shared between the FSA, his Department and the Department of Health, whether he thinks that is satisfactory and what improvements he thinks need to be made?

Owen Paterson: Labour Members have got a nerve! For 13 years, year after year, Conservative Members brought forward labelling Bills and were not backed by Labour Whips. We are the ones who are getting labelling sharpened up; Labour did nothing at all.

Mark Pritchard: May I offer my right hon. Friend my full support? Is this not an opportunity for patriotic purchasing, not only by buying Scottish products, but by buying British products? If consumers want to be confident in the provenance of food, they should buy local, local, local.

Owen Paterson: My hon. Friend has a good point. People are quite right to have great faith in their local suppliers—transport times are reduced, there is clear traceability and there will be clear local knowledge. I repeat: we have great local producers, rigorous traceability systems and stringent production systems, and we end up with superb quality.

Kerry McCarthy: The Secretary of State professes great concern about what is in our meat and the importance of accurate food labelling, yet according to press reports, the UK is trying to get an exemption from EU regulations that would limit to below 50% the amount of fat and connective tissue that can be used to bulk up minced meat. Does that not completely fly in the face of what he has tried to tell the House today?

Owen Paterson: No, we operate on professional advice.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: My right hon. Friend has told us that food regulation is an area of European competence. Some of us may think it an area of European incompetence. As a result of European failures, it seems that my constituents are getting disgusting food—whether or not it is a health risk, it is revolting. I wonder whether the Secretary of State will consider emergency legislation, notwithstanding the European Communities Act 1972, to allow us to stop importing disgusting food.

Owen Paterson: I look forward to sitting down with my hon. Friend and coming up with a legal definition of “disgusting food”. Let me be more positive and refer to my earlier replies: there is splendid food grown in my hon. Friend’s part of England, and I would strongly recommend his constituents to buy local.

Julie Elliott: Does the Secretary of State have confidence in the food chain, and is he confident that the imported food, not just meat, sold in our shops is safe to eat?

Owen Paterson: It is interesting that the hon. Lady uses the term “food chain”. What we have seen in recent days is the extraordinary complexity involved, and I am trying to get away from the expression “food chain”. It is an extraordinary network—an amazing kaleidoscopic variety of factories and suppliers all working together. It is a real network, and what is quite clear in this case is that there has to be more rigorous and more random testing. I have faith in the advice of the independent Food Standards Agency, but down the road, and picking up on the previous question, within the constraints we work under, I would like to see more random testing.

Brooks Newmark: I congratulate the Secretary of State on the speedy, effective, thorough and robust way in which he has handled this issue. My local butcher in Braintree clearly labels its products so I know what I am buying and where it came from. I like to support our local farmers and buy local. Will my right hon. Friend join me in encouraging retailers to have better and clear labelling, so consumers know what exactly is in the products they buy and where they come from?

Owen Paterson: I totally agree with my hon. Friend, and he will be delighted to hear that the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), who is in her place next to me on the Front Bench, is working on that very issue as we speak.

Albert Owen: The hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin), who is just leaving the Chamber, was absolutely right that our near neighbour, Ireland, was ahead of the game in dealing with this issue. What can the Secretary of State learn from his Irish counterparts? On the issue of international criminality, is he confident that we have enough resources and surveillance at our ports of entry?

Owen Paterson: The hon. Gentleman has, I think, missed the point. The Irish had local intelligence of a local problem in Ireland, which is why random testing was done in Ireland. On his other question, I have discussed the issue with the chief executive of the Food Standards Agency, and she is clear that, with her organisation having made some sensible efficiencies, she can certainly deliver everything we ask.

Mark Spencer: May I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests? Given that the problem is with international processors, can the Secretary of State reassure us that any change in legislation or regulation will not fall on the shoulders of small independent butchers and retailers?

Owen Paterson: My hon. Friend raises an important point. There has been a lot of acknowledgement around the House about the benefits of local production, but sadly in recent years we have seen the closure of a large number of small local abattoirs. Such abattoirs are of real value—there are animal welfare and food-quality benefits—so we should be judicious in any moves we make and value small country abattoirs.

David Hanson: If my constituents are mis-sold a range of products, they will have rights. Does the Secretary of State believe that they should have rights if they are mis-sold food products?

Owen Paterson: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that of course people have a right to take their products back. What we clearly agreed with the retailers on Saturday was that if any product has been recalled, any consumer has the right to take that product back to the retailer and get a full refund.

Zac Goldsmith: Does my right hon. Friend agree that an obvious step we could take now is to ensure that the £2 billion or so we spend each year on food for schools and hospitals is used to support our own British farmers, as is done in many other countries in Europe—a policy that our party supported vociferously when it was in opposition?

Owen Paterson: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Significant sums of public money are spent on procurement and we should ensure, if we can within the rules, that it goes in the direction of British producers.

Diana Johnson: What was the exact date on which the Secretary of State became aware that there was a problem with horsemeat in the food chain? I want the exact date, please.

Owen Paterson: We were told about it and it became public knowledge on the day the announcement was made—on 15 January. This was an Irish issue and it was for the Irish to make the announcement.

Andrew Turner: If the moratorium on EU meat products cannot be enforced under EU rules, how does the Secretary of State plan to ensure that more contaminated products are not sold in the UK?

Owen Paterson: I would not use the word “contaminated”; these products are “adulterated”. This is a case of fraud and mis-labelling; there is no evidence at all that these products are in any way a threat to human health. I have discussed this with Commissioner Borg today, and there is absolutely no reason under the current arrangements of European law to provide a basis for a ban. Should we find a product that is injurious to human health, we would obviously act very rapidly. The Commissioner agreed that in those circumstances we would put out a notice around Europe and all take unilateral action.

Russell Brown: We would all dearly like to eat anything marked with a red tractor or a Scottish saltire, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) said, what families eat depends on the household budget. The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that the retailers are responsible for what is sold, but he is responsible for the pace at which this moves forward. We are losing confidence in what people are buying, and if we do not move forward quickly, it will cause reputational damage to the agricultural industry. Will he move this on at a greater pace, and what has he done in respect of speaking to colleagues in Scotland?

Owen Paterson: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that this needs resolving fast. I do not think any greater unity of intent could be seen than in my conversations today. Minister Le Foll from France was emphatic: the moment I suggested the meeting, he was determined to come along. We are quite clear that we all have an alliance of interest in resolving this issue as fast as possible. The hon. Gentleman is right that this issue could damage confidence, but I stress again that this is a case of fraud and mis-labelling: it is not a problem with food safety.

Jason McCartney: I very much welcome the wider debate about where our food comes from. Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the increased popularity of shop local campaigns, local food co-operatives and farmers’ markets, all of which are booming in my constituency?

Owen Paterson: I wholly agree with my hon. Friend. I think shopping local is good: it is good for animal welfare, good for food quality and good for local employment. I strongly support the initiatives my hon. Friend mentions.

Andrew Gwynne: I am astounded that the Secretary of State thinks that this is a mis-labelling issue, given that some beef products have not even come into contact with a cow—except perhaps sharing a field with one at some time. I am appalled when he says that there is not even a health issue. Should he not take responsibility for, and take more seriously, the potential for contamination of the human food chain by the drug bute, which is not fit for human consumption?

Owen Paterson: I would like to reassure the hon. Gentleman that this is a case of mis-labelling and fraud; it is not a case of food safety. The noble Lord Rooker said today that, sadly, 20,000 people go to hospital because of a food-related complaint and, tragically, something like 500 die, yet he does not know of a single individual whose health has been affected by the importation of these products. I think hon. Members must get this in perspective. The hon. Gentleman mentioned bute, but I draw his attention to today’s advice from the chief medical officer, who said:
	“It’s understandable that people will be concerned, but it is important to emphasise that even if bute is found to be present at low levels, there is a very low risk indeed that it would cause any harm to health”.

Angie Bray: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Opposition Front Benchers are demonstrating a degree of opportunism, given that we are operating under a system that we inherited from them? Will he confirm that no testing for horsemeat in food took place during the last seven years of the Labour Administration?

Owen Paterson: Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. I think that that question threw the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) when she was on Andrew Neil’s programme yesterday.
	The important point that my hon. Friend has made is that the Food Standards Agency is rightly targeting its efforts on problems that might be prejudicial to health.
	Until the case in Ireland came up, very recently, there had not been a problem with horsemeat. This is a very recent evolution, and until now the FSA has rightly been concentrating all its efforts on health problems.

William Bain: Although the issue of food safety in Scotland has been devolved to the Scottish Parliament, this Government had responsibility during the discussions that were held with the European Commission on Scotland’s behalf. When the Secretary of State next speaks to the Scottish Agriculture Minister, will he pass on the view of the Scottish people that it is not good enough simply to test products that are manufactured in Scotland, and that goods that are retailed in Scotland must be tested as well? Do not consumers in Scotland deserve the same protection as people in the rest of the United Kingdom?

Owen Paterson: As I think I said in answer to an earlier question, I had a very constructive conversation yesterday with Richard Lochhead, the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment, and he wrote me a letter today. We will work together closely, and I will include him in discussions with the FSA. However, the hon. Gentleman, like some of his colleagues, has missed the point. The ultimate arbiters when it comes to the safety, quality and integrity of food products are the retailers. The hon. Gentleman must get his head around the fact that it is the retailers who are ultimately responsible.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Questions and answers must be very brief from now on.

Julian Smith: When he cited the Irish example, my right hon. Friend spoke of the importance of intelligence. May I urge him, in his discussions with the slightly sleepy FSA, to challenge it on its whistleblowing procedures and incentives? We need as many people as possible to come forward, and he would be taking a great step if he asked the agency how it currently manages its whistleblowing.

Owen Paterson: Transparency is essential. On Saturday, we agreed that further tests would continue, and that the FSA would publish the results every three months in order to give confidence to the consumer. Ensuring that consumers go to shops and buy British goods is absolutely key.

Jonathan Ashworth: Given the concerns about horsemeat, and given the announcement at the end of January that pork DNA had been found in pies that were supposed to be halal, many of my constituents are naturally anxious about the classification of halal meat. Can the Secretary of State tell us what meetings he has had with halal certification organisations, and can he reassure my constituents that meat that is labelled halal is indeed halal?

Owen Paterson: That is an important point. Many faith groups would be shocked to find that they had bought inappropriate material. This is an operational matter, which is being taken up by the FSA.

Sarah Wollaston: If negligent, incompetent or, indeed, criminal producers are happy to contaminate products with horsemeat, with what else would they be prepared to cut those products? Can the Secretary of State reassure my constituents that products have also been tested for non-meat adulterants?

Owen Paterson: That is a very important question. We have no evidence that any other meat product is being used to adulterate bovine, or processed bovine, products.

Grahame Morris: The Secretary of State has told us that this is an issue of fraud and mislabelling, but how can he be sure, given that the random testing seems to have involved only about 1.5% of horse carcases? How can he state so categorically that there is no health issue? If more comprehensive testing by the FSA proves that there is a health issue, will he then act unilaterally?

Owen Paterson: I think I have made clear twice that from now on all horse carcases will be tested, and that none will be released until they are proved to be clear.

Martin Vickers: My constituents were horrified to hear of the circuitous route taken by some of the contents of everyday products before they arrive on the shop shelves. The Secretary of State rightly drew attention to the high quality of British beef and other products. Is he able to restrict the import of foreign products, or is he himself restricted by European legislation?

Owen Paterson: I am happy to make clear that the only grounds on which we could talk to the Commission about a ban on the import of any product would relate to food safety, and to content that might be injurious to human health. Commissioner Borg has made clear that if we did come across a product that could present a risk to food safety, he would react very rapidly.

Nick Gibb: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his handling of this crisis, which has contrasted sharply with the way in which it has been handled by the FSA. When the dust has settled, will he conduct an inquiry into why the FSA’s intelligence systems failed to identify the extensive prevalence of horsemeat in processed and ready-made meals in this country?

Owen Paterson: I think that a system can always be improved. We inherited the current system from the last Government. I have no doubt that there will be lessons to be learnt from this episode, but, as I said in answer to an earlier question, the area in which I am most interested in pursuing real progress is the introduction of random testing. Too much is taken for granted under the present system. Too often, although the paperwork is supposed to describe what is on the pallet or the truck, it goes through the system and no one actually checks. I think that we could make a massive improvement within the current constraints of European competence and all the other arrangements, but I think that random testing would make a real difference. I am pleased that Lord Rooker was so sympathetic to that idea today, as was Commissioner Borg.

Andrew Stephenson: My constituency contains the abattoir of Woodhead Bros Meat Bros Co., in Colne. Woodhead, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Morrisons supermarket, benefited from a £21 million investment last year and employs more than 700 people. All Morrisons’ meat and mince is 100% British-sourced. It uses its own abattoirs and maintains very high standards, as I have seen every time I have visited Woodhead Bros. Will the Secretary of State join me in praising retailers such as Morrisons which do the right thing and go the extra mile to ensure that their products are correct?

Owen Paterson: I have to admire the way in which Morrisons managed to penetrate every possible news outlet in order to promote its products.

Andrew Percy: I understand the technical definition, but to many of my constituents a supposed beef product that is actually horse represents a contamination.
	May I pursue the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers)? Can the Secretary of State tell me whether, if the meat had come from outside the European Union, we would now be looking at an import ban?

Owen Paterson: That is a good question. I assume that my hon. Friend means that the product was processed within the European Union. We should not forget that the products withdrawn by Findus were eventually processed in Luxembourg from meat which, we understand, went to Castelnaudary in France and possibly came from Romania, and that they therefore counted as European Union products. Under the existing system, a product from Comigel in Luxembourg would have to present a health risk to enable me to approach Commissioner Borg to request an import ban.

Christopher Chope: I sympathise with my right hon. Friend, who cannot act freely because his actions are circumscribed by the European Union. What else does he think the European Commissioner should be doing? It seems that the Commissioner does not have much of a sense of urgency in this regard. This is criminal fraud, and we know that a great deal of criminal fraud is endemic throughout the European Union. Why is the Commissioner not taking more action more quickly?

Owen Paterson: Perhaps my hon. Friend would like to address that question directly to the Commissioner. All I can say is that the Commissioner could not have been
	more co-operative when I rang him today. I look forward to meeting him soon this week—certainly before the end of the week—and I shall certainly raise with him that issue of urgency.

Philip Hollobone: Through the extensive use of their loyalty card schemes, the big supermarkets have a very good idea about which individual consumers are buying which beef—horse—products. At the recent summit that he held, did my right hon. Friend get any indication from the big supermarkets that they would use direct promotion to contact individual consumers, first to say sorry, secondly to restore confidence, and thirdly to offer compensation to those who have brought these products in the recent past?

Owen Paterson: My hon. Friend makes a good point. As I have said in my replies to Opposition Members, it is for the retailers to get their message across and take the necessary steps to ensure the validity and integrity of their product. It is for the retailers to communicate with their consumers to ensure that they come back.

Neil Carmichael: I applaud the Secretary of State’s robust approach to eating British food; that is something that everyone in the House will agree with. I am also impressed that he has referred to random testing. Does he think that random testing should be applied to all steps of the food chain? That is an important issue that we need to discuss.

Owen Paterson: My hon. Friend raises an important point. That is exactly what I am thinking of. I repeat that I am concerned that the system as currently conceived is all based on trust. A product is certified at the beginning of the process with a certificate or a piece of paper to state that such and such a pallet contains such and such a product, and it then goes through the system based completely on trust. I would like to have random testing at every stage, so that everyone could be kept on their toes. That could deliver considerable benefits.

Justin Tomlinson: Consumer confidence is key. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the serious questions being asked about the conduct of many of our EU neighbours illustrate the urgency of implementing the display of full product origins on food labels?

Owen Paterson: I am very keen on more accurate labelling—the more information the better—and that is what the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) is working on.

Point of Order

Tom Watson: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. In answering my question earlier, I fear that the Secretary of State might have given incorrect information. I am sure that I heard him say that he spoke to the chief executive of Findus UK on Saturday, but my understanding is that there is not currently a chief exec of the company. He left last December, hence my point about the executive chairman in New York. I would be grateful if the Secretary of State found out who was masquerading as the chief executive, if that is possible.

Owen Paterson: Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I can confirm that I spoke to Mr Leendert den Hollander. Perhaps I have inadvertently misled the House and given him the wrong title, but that was his name.

Tom Watson: Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I believe that that person works for a completely different company—namely, Young’s Seafood.

Nigel Evans: I am sure that this is something that can be sorted out in the course of time.

European Union (Approvals) Bill

Considered in Committee

[Mr Nigel Evans in the Chair]

Clause 1
	 — 
	Approval of certain decisions under Article 352 of TFEU

Christopher Chope: I beg to move amendment 1, page1,line4,leave out ‘decisions’ and insert ‘decision’.

Nigel Evans: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Amendment 2, page1,line5,leave out ‘are’ and insert ‘is’.
	Amendment 3, page1,line8,leave out paragraph (b).

Christopher Chope: It is a pleasure to move amendment 1, and to consider amendments 2 and 3 with it. As hon. Members who are following the Bill closely will realise, the substance of the amendments lies in amendment 3, which proposes to leave out paragraph (b) of clause 1(2). That would have the effect of making the Bill apply only to subsections (1) and (2)(a). It would no longer include any reference to
	“the draft decision to establish a Multiannual Framework for the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights for 2013-2017 (document number 10449/12).”
	On Second Reading, the Minister expressed the view that we would be able to go into the issue of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights in more detail in Committee, and the amendment gives us the opportunity to do just that. I want to reassert the concern that I expressed last week on Second Reading that, although this Government and this country were always against having such an agency, we are tremendously relaxed about extending its budget and its range of activities now that it has been established. There must come a time when we say to the European Union, “Enough is enough. You have gone too far already and we want to rein back the range of activities of the Agency for Fundamental Rights in the coming five-year period.” I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some words of encouragement on the action that our Government are taking to rein back the activities of the agency and, in particular, to prevent it from encroaching on the competences and activities of the Council of Europe, which covers 47 member countries, including the 27 members of the European Union.

Philip Davies: Will my hon. Friend tell the House exactly what this Agency for Fundamental Rights does? As I understand it, its job is to collect and give evidence on data regarding fundamental rights in all the EU countries. Given that we are all already signed up to the European convention on human rights—much against my will, but there we are—which apparently has nothing to do with the European Union, can he explain why on earth we need this body in the first place?

Christopher Chope: The Government at the time had grave reservations about this being included in the provisions of the Lisbon treaty, for the very reason to which my hon. Friend refers—namely, that it represented a duplication of activity that was already taking place.It was an attempt to set up in the European Union a duplicate body to the European Court of Human Rights and the European convention on human rights.
	My hon. Friend asks what the agency does. It was intended to try to create what was called a fundamental rights culture within the European Union, and to that end, the organisation does an enormous amount of research. It holds conferences, one of which I have attended. As I said on Second Reading, it was more a propaganda exercise than anything else. The agency produces large tomes of documentation relating to what it describes as fundamental rights in different countries in the European Union. However, it is clear from everything that it does that its ultimate agenda is to be not an advisory body but a legislative body. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us that the Government realise that that is the agenda, that they have seen through it, and that they are vigorously opposing it, given that it involves the duplication of so many activities.

David Nuttall: I am still not clear about one point. Will my hon. Friend give the House a precise summary of the difference between a human right and a fundamental right?

Christopher Chope: In essence, the Agency for Fundamental Rights tries to deal with collective rights, rather than individual rights, whereas the European Court of Human Rights deals with individual rights. That is a moot point, however. As with so many things, the European Union comes along and confuses the issue by giving a new institution a very similar name to that of an existing body. We have a Council of Europe, and, although we do not have a council of the European Union, we have a European Union Council. We also have a Commission of the European Union. The European Union has stolen the flag that was originally the flag of the Council of Europe. It has even stolen the anthem of the Council of Europe, and it is now intent on stealing the main part of the Council of Europe’s activities—namely, looking after human rights under the European convention on human rights.

Roger Gale: This is part of a creeping sickness, is it not? The European Union is trying to claim rights over trans-frontier broadcasting so that it can tell the whole of Europe what we may and may not broadcast. Upstairs, the House heard this afternoon that the European Union is trying to take over the European Space Agency, which of course goes much wider than the European Union; and now we have this, this evening. Where does my hon. Friend think this might stop?

Christopher Chope: I know my hon. Friend has been doing very valuable work in scrutinising trans-frontier broadcasting —he is, I believe, a rapporteur on that subject for the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.
	Trans-frontier broadcasting exemplifies the problem we have. The Council of Europe set up a convention on trans-frontier broadcasting which has been signed up to not just by its 47 member countries, but by a lot of other countries as well; it is a very important convention. However, the European Union has come along and said that the convention cannot be brought up to date because it cuts across a fundamental competence of the Union. Therefore, the Council of Europe has been prevented, amazingly, from updating the convention because the European Union has said it cannot do so. Of course, because the Union has 27 of the 47 member countries of the Council, if it says, “You cant’ do that”, the Council’s member states collectively have no option but to obey the Union. This is an example, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) rightly says, of the European Union’s plan to encroach further upon the territory and responsibilities of the Council of Europe, to the extent that ultimately, it wishes to take over the whole organisation. That is what is so sinister about this measure.
	If this were for free, we could all be relatively relaxed about it and deal with it as an academic abstraction, but it is costing us serious money: some €83 million at the moment, as we heard on Second Reading. The Agency for Fundamental Rights was set up fewer than 10 years ago with a budget of virtually nothing; now, it already has accrued that amount of expenditure, and the plans for 2013-17 are to expand it much further.
	As we heard in my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister’s brilliant statement today, he and colleagues in the European Union are saying, “Enough is enough: we’ve got to rein back on the European Union’s expansionist programme”. When people put forward the challenge, “What are we going to rein back?”, my view is that this is a good starting point. We never wanted this in the first place, and I hope we are going to hear from the Government what we are doing to push back in the opposite direction.

Kelvin Hopkins: I am somewhat concerned about this issue myself, but I want such rights to be strengthened, rather than weakened. However, I will come to that in my speech. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that some fundamental rights ought to apply to workers and trade unions taking strike action—for example, that we should determine those nationally, rather than internationally?

Christopher Chope: I am absolutely in favour of our having control over these issues as a sovereign country, which is why I do not really buy into the concept that there is some standard of fundamental rights across the whole of Europe. Now, the European Union is trying to identify and interpret common factors across all member countries—the Council of Europe is probably as guilty of this—and then impose them on all the countries through the agency, the Council of Europe or the European Court of Human Rights. These are very serious issues, and I look forward to hearing in due course where the hon. Gentleman thinks the agency should go.
	The agency was only set up as a compromise to provide something based in Vienna. The Austrians had said that they did not have a European Union agency there, and, the agency having duly been set up, the Austrians are in the forefront of wanting to give it more powers, responsibilities and money, so that more Eurocrats
	can be based in Vienna and contribute to the Austrian economy. That is the cynical way these things develop. It was a compromise deal, and we have now seen that this organisation has a life of its own. I hope that Ministers will say they are going to snuff this out before the end of the 2017 multi-annual framework. That is why I have great pleasure in moving amendment 1, but if the issue comes to a vote, I will seek a vote on amendment 3, which is where the substance lies.

Kelvin Hopkins: I am very concerned about this issue because before my time in Parliament, I was involved in the trade union movement, in which I have a strong interest, and my feeling is that the agency and fundamental rights in the European Union are a bit of a paper tiger when it comes to defending workers’ rights. As I said when I intervened, I want fundamental rights to be strengthened. Whether they are strengthened by legislation in this Parliament or at the European Union level is a matter for debate, but they certainly need to be strengthened. The rights of trade unionists were weakened considerably by previous Conservative Governments and they have not been restored to anything like my satisfaction.
	The “paper tiger” nature of fundamental rights in the European Union was shown in the Viking Line case. Industrial action was taken and, strangely, the fundamental right to take strike action was overridden in favour of the interests of employers. Profits and the rights of employers were seen to have primacy over the fundamental rights of trade unionists. So, I am not impressed by the fundamental rights guaranteed by the European Union. If they are fundamental, the trade unionists taking that action should have been found to be in the right, and the European Court of Justice should not have ruled against them, finding in favour of employers. There have been two such cases, major cases, and they have shaken the confidence considerably of many trade unionists who mistakenly put their faith in the European Union to defend their rights.
	I was never impressed with the European Union. As the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) knows, I am a critic from a left-wing, rather than right-wing, point of view. I was never as confident as perhaps some of my colleagues were that the European Union would defend trade union and worker rights. I will not necessarily be voting with the hon. Gentleman on this issue—if a vote is indeed called—but I do want the fundamental rights of workers and trade unionists strongly supported and defended, be that in the European Union or in the United Kingdom.

Chris Heaton-Harris: It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, and I want to talk about the agency in general terms. I am very concerned about the growth in the number of agencies at European level: the European “quangocracy”, as many call it. As a Member of the European Parliament, I sat on the Committee on Budgetary Control, whose purview extended to the agencies when we approved their accounts or gave them a statement of assurance each year. People always moan about the risk of fraud, mismanagement and maladministration in the European Commission, but it was fairly obvious that the further away from the Commission—from the centre—agencies were, the less the scrutiny of their accounts.
	My concern is that giving the Fundamental Rights Agency a multi-annual financial framework and such a big budget increase could lead to issues with the way it runs its accounts. I am not saying it had issues in the past—actually, it did have one—but we are talking about a massive expansion in its budget. It is an arm’s length body that has very little oversight from the European Commission, the European Parliament or national Governments.
	Over the years, the European Court of Auditors has sporadically looked at projects run by the agency. It is fair to say that they have been of mixed value. They have certainly improved over time, as one would expect, but I understand why concerns are being raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), among others, about including an agency whose work obviously duplicates other bits of work going on within the European Commission, the Council of Europe and possibly in other places.
	We are talking about quite a lot of money here. The Prime Minister made a good point in his statement when he said that, in these times of austerity, we should expect the European institutions to act appropriately. I am not trying to undermine the work that the Fundamental Rights Agency does, but I hope that the Minister will talk about the value for money it gives. The reports from the European Court of Auditors on the agency’s spending regularly show that it has come in under budget and has been transferring moneys from different parts of its budget into either staffing or buildings and rent over the past few years—in European terms, that is a good way of coming in slightly under budget rather than having a big surplus. So giving the agency such a huge amount of money in a multi-annual financial framework deserves questioning and deserves our having a proper debate on it.
	I understand where my hon. Friend is coming from in trying to remove reference to the agency from this Bill, because perhaps it is time we had a proper look at one of the agencies of the European Union. In the two and a half years I have been here, I have not seen this place carry out oversight into the agencies in any sort of way, and we should do our job for UK taxpayers, who will be funding this agency come what may. If the Minister would say a few words on how the agency has spent its money and on his hopes for how it will spend the money that we will give it in the future, I would very much appreciate hearing them.

Philip Davies: I do not intend to detain the House for long, but I wanted to support my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), who, yet again, has done a great service to this House. I rather fancy that the Government hoped to sneak this Bill through without any real scrutiny; they hoped it would be nodded through without anybody looking at the detail. Of course, my eagle-eyed hon. Friend has spotted some of the nasty parts of this Bill that the Government were hoping to sneak through, and he has done us a great service by highlighting them.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am shocked at my hon. Friend’s suggestion that such an important Bill could have crept through this House
	without being carefully scrutinised. Many of us spoke on Second Reading and have considered the Bill carefully, as it is a sensible advancement of the European Union Act 2011.

Philip Davies: While my hon. Friends the Members for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) and for Christchurch are in the House, I can be confident that legislation will be properly scrutinised. Without their services, I cannot always be so confident, and we owe them a great debt of gratitude for the work they do.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch is absolutely right about the Fundamental Rights Agency, and I hope that the Minister will make it clear where the Government stand on this issue. Bizarrely, we face enacting something and, in doing so, supporting a wholly unnecessary agency. It is unnecessary because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch said, it does the work that the Council of Europe already does. We are already signed up to the European convention on human rights, which is bad enough—if I had my way, we would not be signed up to that—but now it appears that the Government want us to have an EU version of exactly the same thing.

Michael Connarty: I rise to speak because I am shocked by what the hon. Gentleman has just said. The European convention on human rights came about at the initiative of the British Government in the beginning; it was done to bring people together to find ways of applying common standards across the whole of Europe in order to prevent what had happened leading up to the catastrophe of the second world war. Surely he is not saying that he thinks the UK would have been better off not having taken that initiative and that Europe should remain a place of conflict where people do not agree on what human rights everyone deserves in Europe.

Philip Davies: I know that the hon. Gentleman takes a pride in living in the past, and that is fine and dandy, but of course he was talking about what the convention was set up to do in the first place, many years ago, whereas I am talking about the present. I am sure that he did not envisage our having to have ridiculous things such a votes for prisoners as a result of our membership of the European convention on human rights. I do not want to get sidetracked on to something that is not, strictly speaking, dealt with in this group of amendments, Mr Evans. The hon. Gentleman was tempting me down a path that I fear you might have intervened on had I pursued it any further. My point is that whether we are in the convention rightly or wrongly, we are in it and so it is utterly pointless to have the agency trying to mimic what is already being done there.
	My second point relates to the agency’s desirability. Even if it was not pointless, it would certainly be undesirable. Let me give hon. Members an example of the types of issues the agency is trying to interfere in. It had a speaker on a panel discussing:
	“Guaranteeing access to healthcare for undocumented migrants in Europe”.
	We now have a new term—undocumented migrants. I think my constituents know them as illegal immigrants, but in the politically correct-speak of the EU they are undocumented migrants these days. Of course what
	the agency is trying to do is encourage all these illegal immigrants to access health care in countries such as the UK. My constituents are sick to the back teeth of the national health service being used by illegal immigrants and rather prefer these people to go back to the country that they should be in to access the health care in the country they come from. I hope that the Minister will address the following question: are the Government really using taxpayers’ money to fund an agency within the European Union that is actively encouraging people from within the EU illegally—this discussion was on illegal immigrants—to access this country and use the services provided for people in this country? It would be a ridiculous state of affairs if it was the official policy of Her Majesty’s Government to use taxpayers’ money to fund an agency to give out that kind of advice. If the Government’s policy is that they do not like this particular organisation and do not approve of what is it doing, what on earth are we doing with this Bill? Why are we being encouraged, in effect, to allow taxpayers’ money to be spent this agency?

Christopher Chope: I am sure that my hon. Friend will not welcome this information, but this all goes wider that what he has described, because what is often being suggested is that these people seeking to access health care should be able to do so without disclosing their own identities.

Philip Davies: Absolutely, and again I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The situation makes the Government’s position on these matters unjustifiable and completely ridiculous. If the Government do not support all this, why on earth are we in this situation? If we are in this situation because the Minister is utterly powerless to do anything about it because he has no influence whatsoever, I hope he will admit that. When our referendum comes, in 2017 or thereabouts, it will be another argument for why we should leave the European Union.

John Redwood: Does my hon. Friend agree that the whole idea of an EU quango to lecture member states on how we should behave on human rights is nonsense? This is a group of democratic states, so surely it is the job of the Parliaments of the individual member states to decide on and uphold the human rights in their countries, rather than to be instructed by EU quangos.

Philip Davies: My right hon. Friend, as ever, is absolutely right. We certainly need no lectures from other countries in the EU about how to protect people’s freedoms; this country has a far better track record than member states of the EU will ever have. I suspect that the Minister will be trying to defend the indefensible, but it is a sad state of affairs when it appears that we in this House are powerless to do anything about these sorts of bureaucracies. We all know what happens with these types of bureaucracies: they grow and grow, and they empire build. They will grow their influence and they will try to do things that they are not supposed to do—things they were not set up to do. They will grow the number of staff and grow their budget, and it appears from what I have heard so far that we are utterly powerless to do anything about it. If the Minister can give me some comfort that we can and will do something about it, fair enough, but it seems to me that
	either the Government approve of all this nonsense, which would be a terrible state of affairs, or we are powerless to do anything about it, which in my view is equally unacceptable. I look forward to the Minister explaining which it is, but whichever it is, my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch is right to draw the matter to the attention of the Committee and to pursue his amendment, which I support with gusto.

Michael Connarty: I rise because I am quite exasperated by speeches of the kind made by the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). If I really believed that the people of Shipley did not want to have human rights and participation in a convention that tries to guarantee for people across the wider Europe the same human rights that we—as he said, proudly—think we have in our own country, I would be shocked, but I believe that the people of Shipley deserve better. They deserve to hear an explanation of what this is about.
	As a Member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, I hear these issues debated at every quarterly session and, I hope, participate with colleagues from both sides of the House to try to point out to many countries that are not in the EU that they are not giving human rights in the right quantity to their citizens, but this is about saying that the EU will have an organisation that will also monitor those things. Some might say, “If you have it in the Council of Europe, why require it in the EU?” The reality is that unless a body has economic and legal might, such as exist in the EU, many decisions, such as those taken by the Council of Europe, do not, I am afraid, carry much weight.
	There are thousands of cases against countries in the Council of Europe, which have been found in the Court of Human Rights to be in breach but which are not acted upon by the countries covered by it. There are many cases raised by Conservative Members of countries within the EU where there is a requirement for some muscle to be applied so that people cannot be locked up without trial. One case raised by the hon. Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale), who sadly is not in his place, relates to Malta—our own constituents locked up in other countries.
	The point of introducing the change that has been made in the EU is to allow the EU to start to participate in that activity—a role that I believe will be parallel to and supportive of what is happening in the Council of Europe and what is debated in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.

Philip Davies: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate the nonsense of this country being lectured about fundamental rights and human rights by an organisation such as the EU, which has as the initiator of all its legislation an unelected European Commission? Surely one of the most basic rights is being able to elect people who make all the decisions. The EU has not even got that far.

Michael Connarty: I hope that the people of Shipley are not believing the mythical nonsense that has just been spoken. I have sat on the House’s European Scrutiny Committee since 1998, and the reality is that the European Commission can initiate proposals for legislation, but
	legislation cannot be agreed in the EU unless it is passed by the European Council, and we are one of 27 countries that take those decisions. A number of people do not like the fact that many of those decisions are now taken by qualified majority voting and there is no veto—I know that the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) is keen on the return of the veto on everything—but that is the decision that was taken by the House through the Lisbon treaty and, before that, through many other treaties. We have participation in a Council that makes the legislation, not the Commission.

Wayne David: Does my hon. Friend agree that one problem of the European Court of Human Rights is sheer delay? It has a backlog of 150,000 cases and a five-year delay, on average, before a case is heard. That is unacceptable.

Michael Connarty: That is entirely unacceptable. I believe that that point is regularly made in the Parliamentary Assembly by Members from both sides of the House. We have been pressing to change that, so that many cases that are queuing up at the Court of Human Rights, which clearly do not have any chance of being judged positively in that Court, can be dealt with in another manner. Perhaps some of them will not come to the Court—

Christopher Chope: rose—

Michael Connarty: No, I do not want to continue with the Council of Europe. I have spoken at length in the House in debates on the functions of the Parliamentary Assembly, which I think is an excellent organisation that brings people back to why we come to Parliament. It is about the application of human rights. We often get tied up in playing our parties off against each other, but if we look through the lens of human rights we can very quickly see where the breaches are. There were huge outcries under the previous Government when we were locking up people for long periods without trial, which I objected to. Many of these things come back to the fundamentals.
	The EU is adding its weight. It has more power than the Council of Europe to deliver judgments and make those judgments stick, because penalties apply to things that the EU gets involved in. If we decided to break away from a European directive, we could, as a country, be fined. When, for example, Bulgaria refused to come up to scratch with its legal system, it had all its EU finances frozen until it brought itself up to a standard that was acceptable.
	The EU might attract many criticisms, and at times I find it greatly irritating, but I am pleased that it is adding its weight to the need to look at things on a human rights basis and to report on that. That is what the proposal is about.

John Redwood: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept, in retrospect, that when so many powers were given away by the House under the Labour Government, it would have been much better if they had asked the British people’s permission? The British people feel cheated now.

Michael Connarty: I know that the right hon. Gentleman has a strong view about that. I do not happen to think that a referendum on an issue as complex as the EU would be debated according to the quality of the information that is required. Referendums become a mass populist vote either for or against a Government. If this Government went for a vox pop at the moment, they might be in great danger of being voted out of office. Why does he not put that to the people?

Emma Reynolds: Does my hon. Friend agree that the biggest transfers of power happened in the 1980s with the Single European Act and with the Maastricht treaty in 1992? Actually, the current Foreign Secretary voted against a referendum on Maastricht.

Michael Connarty: I recall that well, because I have been a Member of the House since ’92, and I remember the very lengthy debates that took place, but this is not about the Maastricht treaty; it is about the proposal in the Bill, which is basically to set up a
	“Multiannual Framework for the Fundamental Rights Agency”.
	That is the point that is of interest to me, because that is an important thing to do and we should be going forward with it. I hope that we do. If the Government really are about to do an about-face and vote against that, I wonder what their position was in the Council, when this went through. Were they voted down in the Council? Are they about to change their position?
	I am interested in the Government’s position as much as anyone else, but I am speaking from my point of view, looking at this as someone who has been on the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the European Scrutiny Committee for a long time. It is important, I believe, for us to realise that, while we might not like the fact that the EU sometimes asks us to do things that we might not have wished to do ourselves—for me, some of those are in fishing and agriculture, neither of which has been massively amended by anything that has happened recently under this Government—human rights will not be harmed in this country but will be advanced markedly in other countries by having the EU alongside the Council of Europe and the Court of Human Rights, fighting for human rights for all in Europe. Who would wish to deny that, apart from the hon. Member for Shipley?

Chris Heaton-Harris: Is there not a concern, though, about the duplication and growth of those agencies? Even the European Commission, through Commissioner Šefcovic, said at the end of last year that we need to reform many of these agencies, which have unruly-sized governing boards, and try to prevent conflicts of interest. Just in this particular field, we have the Fundamental Rights Agency based in Vienna, the European Institute for Gender Equality based in Vilnius, and the European Asylum Support Office based in Valetta. Surely the question is, should we be growing this agency and giving it such a big budget and a multi-annual financial framework of such a size before we have undertaken some reform of those agencies?

Michael Connarty: I take the point. It is well made by the hon. Gentleman, who speaks from the dual perspective of looking in from the European Union at the effect on other countries, and looking out now from this Parliament at what the European Union is doing.
	I find it remarkable that every time the European Union grows, we have a convention that the new member state gets a new Commissioner. At my first meeting in Brussels, I believe I raised the matter with UKRep—why did we need a new Commissioner every time we added a country? Why does every member state have to have an office of some kind because it does not have an office of some other kind? We did it. We were fighting over the universal patent recently, and the most important thing to the UK was where the patent court would be based. It had to be based in London. It was not about whether the patent was a good or a bad thing. There is a problem with the EU in that it sprays benefits around. I believe it has put some institution on Crete—a wonderful island where I have holidayed often, but I could not work out why a major institution of the European Union had been located on Crete, apart from the fact that the Greeks wanted to have their turn.
	That has to be looked at fundamentally, but the principle is correct. If the European Union sets up the agency, it will monitor what is happening with human rights, and I hope it will then begin to ask how it can help the Council of Europe, the European Court of Human Rights and those who want, as Churchill and many others did after the last war, to base Europe on human rights. The questions will continue about the corpus juris, which the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) will no doubt talk about, and the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) will no doubt talk about economic interference.
	After all that is discussed, I hope we will all be able to agree that if the EU supports the Council of Europe and does the business, making human rights available to all the people in the EU and then beyond, it will advance Europe in accordance with the original principles of the people who set up the convention, which should be at the heart of our politics.

David Nuttall: That was an interesting contribution from the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty), but one with which I fundamentally disagree. It was obvious from the early part of his comments that they reinforced the points that have been made throughout this debate. In essence, we have jumped back from fundamental rights to human rights.
	In an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), I asked whether we could try to agree on the difference between human rights and fundamental rights, but everyone seems to have jumped back to accepting that fundamental rights is just another phrase for human rights, and that the agency does no more than replicate what is done elsewhere in the European Union by the Council of Europe. What came out of those comments was the fact that if reform is needed, we need to reform the Court, so that it can enforce the decisions made by the Council of Europe.

Bob Stewart: What is the difference between British human rights and European Union human rights? Surely British human rights should be decided here and should take precedence.

David Nuttall: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. It is the second of the points that I want to make, which is about subsidiarity. We hear a lot about subsidiarity, yet in practice the European Union goes the other way, rather than saying, “Look, these are the
	matters which you will probably be concerned with. We’ve had a look at the UK and you’ve got plenty of organisations within the UK to deal with all these matters. There is no need for an EU body.” That applies across all 27, soon to be 28, member states.

Philip Davies: Has my hon. Friend thought about what situation we would be left in if the UK got a positive judgment from the European Court of Human Rights, but was then told that it was falling foul of the EU’s Agency for Fundamental Rights?

David Nuttall: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, which gets to the heart of one of my major concerns about the organisation and why I support entirely the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch. It highlights the confusion in the minds of our constituents.
	I wonder how many of our constituents even know that that body exists. I suspect that if I conducted a poll on the streets of Bury, I would have to wait a very long time and ask a large number of people before I found anyone who had even heard of the agency, never mind understood what it was intended to do. That is not surprising, because it was introduced in 2007 by the back door. It was introduced under the provisions of section 352 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union, the Lisbon treaty, which allows for such new bodies to be established without any proper discussion. As I say, it was introduced through the back door.
	The EU goes on about the principle of subsidiarity, but then we find that it is creating an EU-wide body to do things which, as we have heard in tonight’s debate, are not only being done elsewhere in Europe, but ought to be and can be done properly here in the UK. This is not a cheap body. We know that in 2013 the agency will get a subsidy of €21.3 million from the EU budget.

Mark Reckless: Is it not anomalous that the agency should have a separate multi-annual financial framework for the five years from 2013 to 2017, rather than being rolled into the overall multi-annual financial framework from 2014 to 2020, which the Prime Minister has ably ensured will be significantly reduced?

David Nuttall: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. The question arises what would happen in a situation which has partly happened now and will certainly happen in the next multi-annual framework, where the agency straddles two financial periods. How can an agency properly budget when its framework straddles two budgetary periods? It does not make sense. That is just another example of muddled thinking in Europe, and of an organisation that has no intention of being transparent or open to the people whom it seeks to serve.

John Redwood: I am sure my hon. Friend has noticed that in the supporting documentation it is asserted that there will be no impact on public sector manpower or cost. Having to deal with yet another one of these fiddly agencies means huge legal bills, on top of the ones that
	we have for the European Court of Human Rights and on top of our domestic ones. Is that not an awful lot of extra money?

David Nuttall: Yes. My right hon. Friend again makes an excellent point. We will find that someone who is concerned about a particular right in this country is faced with a plethora of bodies, and those involved in this field in this country have an extra body to liaise with on the European front. Whereas in the past they would just have looked to the contents of the European convention on human rights and the findings of the European Court of Human Rights, they now have to think, “I wonder what the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights will think about all this. I wonder what it has said about it.”
	I will not go down that road, as we have other amendments to consider and there is a further debate afterwards. I doubt whether we need that body at all. That is why I will support my hon. Friend’s amendments tonight. The body is unnecessary and it adds confusion to what is already a very crowded playing field in the area of human rights. I simply ask the Minister how the agency will benefit my constituents in Bury, North. How would they notice if it were simply abolished? That is what I think should happen.

Robert Walter: My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) and I do not always agree on matters relating to the European Union, but we generally agree on matters relating to human rights. He does sterling service in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of the Europe as chairman of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights.
	Many of us agree, across the spectrum of views on the European Union, that because all 27 members of the European Union are members of the Council of Europe and signatories to the European convention on human rights, the Fundamental Rights Agency represents unnecessary duplication. I had rather hoped that in the Council document on the multi-annual framework that is mentioned in the Bill we would find a distinction between the legitimate area of activity for European Union institutions and what is done in the general field of human rights. Article 2 of the document lists the thematic areas that the Fundamental Rights Agency will deal with during the multi-annual framework period, the first of which are “access to justice”, which I thought was dealt with under the European convention on human rights;
	“victims of crime, including compensation to victims of crime”,
	issues on which there have been decisions in the European Court of Human Rights; the
	“information society and, in particular, respect for private life and protection of personal data”,
	on which much work is going on in the Council of Europe; “Roma integration”, which is one of the key problem areas that the secretary-general of the Council of Europe has identified for his five-year term; and
	“judicial cooperation, except in criminal matters”,
	which might be an area where the European Union has exclusive competence, particularly in commercial law, but I wonder whether even this is a necessary reason for the existence of the Fundamental Rights Agency.
	The list continues with the “rights of the child”. I heard the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) talk about that subject, on which he is a great expert in the Council of Europe, where he serves as a member of the Parliamentary Assembly. Why is it within the remit of the Fundamental Rights Agency? The next area is
	“discrimination based on sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation”.
	This is all the red meat of what is discussed in the Council of Europe and the red meat of the implementation of the European convention on human rights. Then we have
	“immigration and integration of migrants, visa and border control and asylum”.
	Several committees are looking at that very subject at this moment within the Council of Europe. The final area is
	“racism, xenophobia and related intolerance”.
	Again, those issues are on the agenda of the Council of Europe.

Michael Ellis: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a simple matter of fact that for many of the issues that he is delineating we in this country have been practising a proper discourse and addressing them coherently in UK jurisdictions, in many cases before the European Union even existed?

Robert Walter: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is partly why we were one of the founder members of the Council of Europe and one of the original signatories to the European convention on human rights.
	Article 3 of the document gives one a little hope, because it talks about
	“Complementarity and cooperation with other bodies”,
	but one has to read all the way through it to find that it does not even mention the Council of Europe until the final sentence, in paragraph 5, which refers to the
	“Agreement between the European Community and the Council of Europe on cooperation between the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights and the Council of Europe”.
	That is all well and good. However, I hope that the Minister will deal with the question of resources. The Council of Europe has been constantly under pressure from all 27 member Governments, including our own, on how it disburses its budget. The ever-increasing work load in the European Court of Human Rights means that the majority of the budget goes towards its operation. Now we have another body, funded by exactly the same taxpayers in the 27 member states of the European Union, that apparently might not have the same financial constraints placed on it. Would it not make absolute sense if we, as the 27 members of the European Union, agreed to chuck the little packet of money that we are going to give to the Fundamental Rights Agency into the budget of the Council of Europe to make it the much more effective body in promoting human rights and respect for all the rights outlined in article 2 of the document? We could then ensure that we in the European Union can promote human rights much more effectively, particularly in the new states of Europe and the states to the east, as partners through our membership of the Council of Europe.

Damian Green: My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) provoked a very wide-ranging debate covering a large number of issues, some of which are to do with the Bill and a few of which are even to do with the amendments. They include the question of whether the Fundamental Rights Agency represents value for money and concern about the potential for duplication with the work of the Council of Europe, about which my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr Walter) spoke so eloquently.
	The Bill is limited to seeking parliamentary approval for an EU decision to agree the agency’s new five-year work programme. The programme simply identifies the thematic areas under which the agency will undertake its tasks. The amendments—my main contribution to the debate, Mr Evans, will be to talk about the amendments—have as their common purpose a desire to remove clause 1(2)(b) from the Bill, the effect of which would be to withhold parliamentary approval of the draft decision that seeks to establish the next five-year work programme for the agency. Without that parliamentary approval, the UK cannot vote in favour of this measure at EU level. I do not believe that withholding such approval is the right course of action. I urge my hon. Friend to withdraw the amendment, or the Committee to vote against it, for the following reasons.
	The work programme is agreed by the Council. Agreeing the work programme provides member states—including, of course, us—with the opportunity to define the focus for the agency’s work for the next five years, encouraging it to concentrate its resources on a limited number of areas and to undertake targeted, in-depth research within the boundaries defined by the framework. The UK has participated actively in the negotiations that have led to the new draft programme being drawn up and is satisfied with the results. It is important for the Committee to be clear that the agreement of a new work programme does not alter the core tasks of the agency, nor does it change the agency’s role. The work programme does not set out or define these elements. They are set out in a completely different instrument—the agency’s establishing regulation, which is not under review in the Bill or in the amendments. I hear the views of many of my hon. Friends about the merits of the agency’s work, but neither this Bill nor the draft decision that it approves can do anything to bring about changes in those areas.

John Redwood: I think that we have all been entirely in order and that the Minister should reconsider. We are saying that we want this thing to do a lot less and to do it much more cheaply. That is entirely in order, and it is our one opportunity to say it. We in this Government are meant to be looking for cuts. This would be an exceedingly popular one, so will the Minister cut the thing?

Damian Green: I was not suggesting for a moment that my right hon. Friend, my hon. Friends or anyone else who has contributed to this debate were out of order; I was merely making the point that I want to address the amendments. My right hon. Friend has expressed his views with characteristic force, but I have to disappoint him by saying that the amendments would not achieve what he hopes they would.
	Let me be clear about the consequences of the UK not approving the draft decision. Failure to agree the work programme would deprive the Council of the opportunity to set the direction of the agency by defining the themes. However, the absence of a work programme would not mean that the agency would go away or down tools. My right hon. and hon. Friends should bear that important point in mind when considering whether or not to support the amendment. If there was no draft framework, the agency would still be able to carry out its role. However, its focus would shift to answering requests for work from other EU institutions. Not supporting the framework therefore means that member states, including the UK, would have less influence on the work that the agency does. I do not think that that would be a good result for the UK and I suspect that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch would agree with that.
	The themes set out in the work programme continue those in the current one, and I welcome the European Scrutiny Committee’s analysis that the proposed work programme can indeed be considered to be equivalent to the former one. Although there are some adjustments between the two work programmes with regard to terminology, the changes will not alter the work that the agency has been doing.
	During negotiations the UK Government were successful in ensuring that the themes set out in the work programme should continue to be limited to Community law. Other member states proposed the inclusion of themes on police co-operation and judicial co-operation in criminal matters. That would have been an extension of the agency’s work and it was successfully resisted by the UK Government. The draft decision records that we were successful. Agreeing to the draft decision will ensure that that is a binding decision of the EU institutions. That is why we are asking Parliament to approve it.
	Moving on to some of the specific points that have been raised, the issue of duplication of the work of the Council of Europe has been a feature of this debate. The agency’s role is to provide the EU institutions and member states with independent evidence on how fundamental rights are respected. It does so through undertaking research and producing comparative data of the situation of rights across those member states, and through producing indicators that can be applied across the EU. Some of my hon. Friends were treating it as though it were an alternative to either the European Court of Justice or the European Court of Human Rights. It is, in essence, a data collection and dissemination agency that does not do any of the work of the ECJ or the ECHR. I agree that that would be unnecessary duplication. The same point applies to those in this country who, quite reasonably, would not want to lectured by the Fundamental Rights Agency about our performance on human rights. It does not do that sort of thing—that is not the work that it does.
	There has been much discussion and concern expressed about money. This, of course, has to be set in the context of the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister earlier today. As he made clear—I think this was widely welcomed by all parties—the Government will continue to push for a good deal for UK taxpayers through agreement on the next multi-annual
	financial framework. The agency’s budget for the period covered by the next MAFF will form part of our negotiations following the agreement of that framework.

David Nuttall: Before the Minister concludes, could he give just one example of how British citizens have benefited in any way whatsoever from the existence of this agency since it was established?

Damian Green: The dissemination of hard facts and data on human rights performance across the European Union is intrinsically useful for British citizens and, indeed, those of other countries, because it enables us to assess how one of the basic things that we all wish to preserve—not just in our country, but in neighbouring countries—namely a basic commitment to human rights, is actually happening. It is extremely desirable for the citizens of democratic countries to enjoy human rights almost as a matter of habit, and it seems to me that any body that promotes such a state of affairs, in however small a way, is doing useful things for the British people.

Michael Connarty: Even in Shipley.

Damian Green: I suspect it applies in Shipley, but it might not. I defer to the knowledge of my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) on the people of Shipley. I think that human rights are a good a thing in Shipley, as they are elsewhere.
	I note the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch. He will have heard my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister raising concerns about the large number of EU institutions. It is an issue that will no doubt be discussed as part of a broader debate about our relationship with the European Union.
	The decision to approve a new five-year work programme for the agency will continue to provide the Council with the authority to direct its work. The Government have successfully ensured that the proposal will not extend the ambit under which the agency functions. It will have no impact on the role or tasks of the agency. As such, the Government cannot support the amendment and I respectfully ask my hon. Friend to withdraw it.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister for responding so frankly. What he has said illustrates the farce we are in. As a result of the commendable passing of the European Union Act 2011, we are being asked to approve, among other things, the work programme of the Fundamental Rights Agency for the next five years. If we do not approve the programme, we have been told, “Don’t worry—they’re going to go ahead with it anyway and choose their own programme.” Similarly, as the Prime Minister told us earlier with regard to the multi-annual financial framework—the next seven-year budget for the European Union—if a real-terms reduction had not been agreed, it would have carried on spending more than had been agreed anyway. That shows the extent to which we have been tied up in knots by the European Union and its institutions. The evidence coming out of this debate will be prayed in aid by people such as me when we get into the hard issues of debating whether or not it would be better to stay in or leave the European Union. I see this as part of that debate.
	This debate has raised a number of interesting points beyond the Minister’s insight into what our powers amount to in this case. My hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr Walter) undertakes with extreme diligence his job as leader of the UK parliamentary group in the Parliament Assembly of the Council of Europe. He raised a number of serious issues. Such issues are being raised not just by him as leader of the UK delegation, but by a lot of other delegations. One such issue is that, at a time when the European Court of Human Rights and the Council of Europe are being starved of resources, we can see with our own eyes that the 27 member countries of the European Union feel that they can throw money at the gravy train that is the Fundamental Rights Agency. Sadly, I did not hear an assurance from my right hon. Friend the Minister about what the Government are doing to stop that. They may be powerless to do anything about it, for the reasons given in his speech.
	I do not think that that is good enough. We now have a situation in which we know that a lot of that money is being wasted. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley referred in his excellent speech to undocumented migrants in Europe having access to health care. That was the very subject on the agenda at the Warsaw conference that I attended and on which I expounded on Second Reading. What a waste of money that was.
	The hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) was concerned about the five-year delays in getting judgments. The European Court of Human Rights needs more money if it is to increase the speed with which it deals with its casework. It is not getting extra money because the 27 members of the European Union would prefer to spend their money on the Fundamental Rights Agency.

John Redwood: Does my hon. Friend not mean to say that the work load of the European Court of Human Rights should be severely reduced to leave more matters in the power of democratic member states? Surely he does not want more money to be spent at that level.

Christopher Chope: As a lawyer—[Laughter.] As a non-practising lawyer, I believe that if somebody starts a case before the courts under the rule of law, it should reach a conclusion within a reasonable space of time. It is incumbent upon any organisation that operates a legal system to ensure that sufficient resources are available for the judges to reach decisions reasonably quickly.

John Redwood: Does my hon. Friend not agree with the Government’s very wise argument that we do not want so many appeals to the European Court of Human Rights and that individual litigants should be able to appeal only to our Supreme Court?

Christopher Chope: I certainly agree with that in relation to our particular case. I look forward to debating that issue when we discuss the draft Voting Eligibility (Prisoners) Bill. Two months have gone by since the draft Bill was published and the Committee still has not been set up to consider it. However, that is another story.

Mark Reckless: Surely my hon. Friend is not suggesting that he objects to delay on that matter.

Christopher Chope: Again, I believe in the concept of reasonable expectations. Once a draft Bill has been produced and the Government have said that it will be put before a Joint Committee, I expect the Joint Committee to be appointed within a reasonable space of time. The Committee can then meet and decide its own timetable. However, I would not want to take issue unnecessarily with the Government on a matter such as that, which is relatively small in comparison with some of the other issues on which I have differences with the Government.
	I would love to recommend to my colleagues that we divide on this subject, but having heard from the Minister that even if we carried a Division, it would be of no use whatever and might even be counter-productive, I am minded to say that the best thing to do is to hope that the Minister will take back the concerns over the misallocation of resources between the Council of Europe and the Fundamental Rights Agency, and that he will see what he can do to change the system so that the next time we have a debate like this, we have the power to control the agenda and the work programme, rather than being presented with a fait accompli, the alternative to which is even more latitude for the agency concerned.
	The next amendment that we will discuss is more wide-ranging and I hope that the Minister will explain in a little more detail why that amendment cannot be accepted by the Committee. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Wayne David: Clause 1 refers to the draft decisions on the Official Journal and the Fundamental Rights Agency.
	I will refer to those two issues in a moment, but I would first like to say a little about clause 1(1), which sets out that when a decision is reached under article 352 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union, or the Lisbon treaty as it is known as, under section 8 of the European Union Act 2011 that decision must come before Parliament for ratification.
	As connoisseurs of these matters will be aware, article 352 is quite controversial. It is the so-called flexibility or enabling clause, which allows decisions to be taken when there is no legal base for them. Its predecessor was article 308 of the European Community treaty. When I was a member of the European Scrutiny Committee, we produced an excellent report on article 308.
	I am pleased that we have this new parliamentary power under the 2011 Act. I am sure that the Minister for Europe will recall that the Opposition consistently supported more powers for national Parliaments when the Bill was going through this House. The procedure with regard to article 352 is an important new power.
	I was, however, concerned that the former Lord Chancellor, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), said last year in evidence to the European Scrutiny Committee that an Act of Parliament was not required to enact the decision on the Fundamental Rights Agency because it satisfied the exemption requirement under section 8(6)(a) of the 2011 Act. That was rightly questioned by the European Scrutiny Committee. In a letter to the Committee on 22 November, the Government stated that they had had second thoughts and that legislation would be brought forward after all. That is one point to the European Scrutiny Committee.
	I find it strange, given the initial difference of opinion between the Government and the European Scrutiny Committee, that there is not even a passing reference in the explanatory notes to why the Government at first considered the decision to be exempt and then had a change of heart. Perhaps the Minister could tell the Committee what changed between the summer and winter of last year that prompted the Government to alter their position. Eventually, the European Scrutiny Committee cleared the document, but it stated that the Government’s uncertainty—I would say vacillation—had led to an inordinate delay.
	Clause 1(2)(a) is about giving binding legal effect to the electronic version of the Official Journal, as only the printed version currently has such veracity. This may be called the libation clause. I say that because, as I mentioned on Second Reading, this paragraph is required, in part at least, because of a ruling by the European Court of Justice on a case concerning the importation of red dessert wine into the Czech Republic.
	After being fined for breaking customs law, Skoma-Lux, the company that imported the dessert wine, brought an action in a Czech regional court in an attempt to cancel the fine. The company argued that the wine should not be classified as standard red wine and that the Act of accession for the new member states that joined in 2003 was not legally binding because it had not been published in Czech in the paper version of the Official Journal.
	After expert examination by the customs technical laboratory in Prague, the wine was indeed reclassified because, unlike most wines, it was made from grape juice that had added sugar and corn spirit. It was said that that did not change the
	“organoleptic characteristic of the beverage”
	but did cause the wine to have a sweet taste that cannot be achieved by “standard wine production”. Because the regional court was not sure whether that could be discerned by customs officers, the issue was referred to the European Court of Justice. Sadly, I have been unable to find out the view of the European Court of Justice on that matter. Perhaps the Minister for Europe can help us.
	Although that is unclear, what is clear is that the European Court of Justice made a number of unequivocal statements with regard to the other point that was brought before it, namely the availability of EU law in the paper form of the Official Journal. The Court ruled that “making the legislation available” on the internet
	“does not equate to a valid publication in the Official Journal of the European Union in the absence of any rules in that regard in Community law”.
	In the light of that ruling, the European Commission agreed to bring forward a proposal. Political agreement was achieved at the Justice and Home Affairs Council of March 2012. Undoubtedly, easy access to EU law makes for speed and is economic, and it would obviously be advantageous to have legal certainty.
	Earlier I mentioned reservations in this House about the use of article 352, but it is worth noting that scrutiny reservations are not confined to this Parliament. I understand that other Parliaments, especially those in the Czech Republic and Germany, also had concerns about article 352 and the possibility of decisions being
	taken without a given treaty base. On the legal status of the online Official Journal, I understand that Germany entered a parliamentary scrutiny reserve and therefore the German Government were unable to confirm their agreement. Will the Minister confirm whether the situation in Germany has been clarified, and that there are no problems in other member states?
	The second part of the clause concerns the future thematic areas of work of the Fundamental Rights Agency. At the Justice and Home Affairs Council on 31 May last year, nine areas of work were agreed. Since then the European Parliament has formally approved the text. It will, of course, have legal effect only once the Council has adopted it—hence the relevance, once again, of this Bill. The FRA is limited in its work because it is confined to collecting and analysing data while providing advice and seeking to raise awareness of fundamental rights. It works alongside the European Court of Human Rights and its efforts are very much complementary to the work of the ECHR.
	As we heard this evening and on Second Reading, a number of Conservative Members have questioned the appropriateness of a body such as the Fundamental Rights Agency. In particular, the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) asked whether it is really necessary for the European Union to concern itself with fundamental rights. Would it not be better, he argued, if we relied simply on the European convention on human rights and the European Court of Human Rights? That is not a spurious argument by any means and the hon. Gentleman put it well this evening. However, I ask Members to dip into the report by the House of Lords European Union Committee which addresses that point specifically, and although I would not concur with everything in that report, it makes the case extremely well.
	The report points out how the European Union can bring added value to the work of the ECHR, and refers to a number of areas where it can do that. Its first point is that the ECHR does not provide comprehensive coverage of the fundamental rights agenda. Last week my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) gave a good, specific example of where the FRA has conducted useful comparative research on the position of gay people—research that is not being undertaken by any other body, including the ECHR. There are many more substantive examples of value that can be added by the European Union and the FRA.

Robert Walter: The hon. Gentleman has cited examples of where the Fundamental Rights Agency is investigating areas into which the European Commissioner for Human Rights—a Council of Europe appointment—has not delved. Surely it would be more logical if we were to use those resources for the benefit of all 47 member states of the Council of Europe. It is in the 20 member states that are not members of the European Union that those rights are inevitably most at risk.

Wayne David: The hon. Gentleman makes the point: there is a mismatch between the Council of Europe and the European Union, not least in terms of the membership of those two constituent organisations. It can become awkward and cumbersome, but that obvious overlap
	should be recognised and efforts are being made by both parties to minimise the duplication of work. It is significant, for example, that the Council of Europe has an independent expert who sits on the board of the Fundamental Rights Agency. A physical interrelationship takes place, which is to be warmly welcomed.
	One conclusion of the important report from the other place was that:
	“EU legislation brings a considerable added value over the ECHR in that it can be effectively enforced…It can also cover matters not adequately covered by the ECHR and is more flexible”.
	Those are important considerations. We are talking about two different beasts. The work is complementary but it is also different and it is important to recognise that.
	In conclusion, it is not my intention to trespass into the debate about whether or not the UK should exercise next year its block opt-out of so-called third pillar issues. That is a debate for another time, but I say simply that these issues need careful and rational consideration. Given the interest in related issues, I hope that this House will have umpteen opportunities to consider the profound decision that will have to be made next year. This clause has the support of the Labour party and we are pleased that time has been allocated for the discussion of the Bill on the Floor of the House. We hope Members from all sides will feel able to support the clause.

Damian Green: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) for the Opposition’s support for this clause. He asked a couple of specific questions including why the Government changed their mind about the applicability of the exemption in the European Union Act 2011 to these measures. Originally, the Government thought that section 8 exemptions applied to a decision previously adopted under article 308 of the treaty. However, having reconsidered the issue of exemptions, and partly owing to the sterling work of the European Scrutiny Committee and its equivalent in another place, the Government concluded that decisions previously adopted under the legal base of article 308 do not fall within the exemptions in the 2011 Act. Therefore, along with future article 352 decisions that were previously adopted under article 308, such decisions will require parliamentary approval through primary legislation.
	The hon. Gentleman also asked about the state of play in Germany, and I am happy to assure him that Germany and all other member states have completed parliamentary scrutiny of this issue. The Council is awaiting the decision of the UK Parliament before the decision can be adopted.
	We have discussed exhaustively the work programme of the Fundamental Rights Agency, and the hon. Gentleman made a good point that the other part of this clause is about allowing the electronic version of the Official Journal of the European Union to be regarded as an authentic version. I am sure the Committee will agree that in the modern world in which electronic communications are now as normal as paper communications, that is a sensible measure that will not increase costs for the UK and its taxpayers. I commend the clause to the Committee.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2
	 — 
	Approval of decision relating to number of EU Commissioners

Christopher Chope: I beg to move amendment 4, page1,line18,at end insert
	‘subject to a condition that the staff and resources available to members of the European Commission shall not be increased but redistributed for any number of EU Commissioners in excess of 27.’.

Nigel Evans: With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 2 stand part.

Christopher Chope: The background to this, as right hon. and hon. Members will know, is that a reduction in the number of EU Commissioners was proposed, but the Irish—among others—said that that would potentially be very unfair on them. They wanted to be guaranteed the right to have a Commissioner and, as part of the compromise deal that was done to try to win the support of the Irish people in a referendum, the concession was made. They were told, “Don’t worry, every country can have an EU Commissioner.” We are now being asked to give approval to the decision relating to the number of EU Commissioners.

Andrew Turner: Can my hon. Friend explain why it is felt necessary that each country should have a Commissioner?

Christopher Chope: It is difficult for me to speak for them, but perhaps some countries feel that only if they have a Commissioner of their own will they have sufficient patronage to distribute. It is within the patronage of any Government to appoint an EU Commissioner. For example, we have heard rumours that the way out for the Deputy Prime Minister will be to be appointed the next UK EU Commissioner.

Mark Reckless: Does my hon. Friend recall that I asked the Deputy Prime Minister about that directly, and he assured the House that he would not be a candidate? If Ireland insisted on keeping its Commissioner in order to ratify the Lisbon treaty and we did not want to ratify it, why did we not say, “Well, this depends on a vote of this Parliament”, and why should we approve it if the aim is to help the Lisbon treaty get through?

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend makes a telling point, and I am sure that the Minister will respond to it with the benefit of his knowledge when he winds up. So often we talk hard on these EU issues—sometimes the Government and Ministers talk hard on them—but when we have it in our power to do something about them, we pull our punches and let the matter slide away. Especially now, in the build-up to the decision that the British people will be invited to take on whether we should leave the European Union, it is vital that the Government do not duck these issues, but face up to them.
	I very much welcome what the Prime Minister said in his statement to the House earlier today. It was against the background of it being pointed out in the German newspaper Die Welt that the Prime Minister was wrong to suggest that hundreds of eurocrats were paid more
	than him or Chancellor Merkel, because its research had shown that the actual figure is 4,365. The Prime Minister said how disappointed he was that the administrative costs will still be some 6% of the EU budget, and he said that reducing the level of those costs would be “a long-term project”. Well, this modest amendment would be a start.
	Just because there will be more EU Commissioners, it does not mean that the expenditure incurred by them should increase pro rata. The amendment does not ask for any real-terms reduction in the total spent on EU Commissioners, but it suggests that the total amount spent at the moment should be redistributed among the 28 or 29 Commissioners.

Philip Davies: Obviously this is a sensible amendment that is totally in line with the Prime Minister’s announcement earlier today, and I presume that the Government cannot possibly disagree with it. Does my hon. Friend think that he has stumbled across another area in which the Government might have to admit that they do not in fact have the power to do what my hon. Friend would like them to do?

Christopher Chope: I hope that that is not the case, although I do not know whether my hon. Friend has been tipped off about what the Minister will say in response to the debate. I cannot see the point of the Bill if we cannot pass an amendment that has been accepted as in order. The amendment would simply make it a condition of our acceptance of having an EU Commissioner for each member country that the total budget should not be increased if the number goes above 27, but should be shared among however many Commissioners there are. I would be amazed to be told that such a modest amendment was not within our power, especially when we know that it would be going in the direction of travel—to use that ghastly expression—of many other members of the European Union who are concerned that its administrative expenditure seems to absorb far too much money.

Philip Davies: Given the Minister’s form tonight, does my hon. Friend not expect him to say that even if the amendment were accepted, the EU would just carry on anyway and recruit the number of staff and expend the resources it wanted to, because it does not take any notice of decisions in this Parliament?

Christopher Chope: That is a fair point, and it was reflected in what the Prime Minister said earlier. He said that the European Commission simply has not looked at what it can do to constrain its administrative expenditure. He has a lot of knowledge about that issue because he sees it face to face every time he goes to Brussels or any other European institution. He can see the amount of money wasted on bureaucracy in Brussels. There is obviously scope for a modest reduction, and that is why I had hoped that I would have already received notice that the Government intended to accept my amendment.

David Nuttall: Given that the decision by the European Council to maintain one Commissioner per country was taken only because of the result of the Irish referendums,
	and the decision by the Irish people to say no to the Lisbon treaty, would it not strengthen our Government’s hand in their attempt to cut the administration costs of the European Union if the Committee approved the amendment?

Christopher Chope: Absolutely, and I would have thought that this amendment would be supported by Opposition Members too, as they have been in the forefront of calling for a reduction in expenditure by the European Union. Whether or not they believe that sincerely, they have been calling for that.

Philip Davies: Is not the opposite point to the one made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) more pertinent? What message would it send to the European Union about the Government’s determination to clamp down on administrative costs in the EU if they resisted such a modest amendment as this?

Christopher Chope: That is a very powerful point. By their actions shall people and Parliaments be judged. This is how we are going to send out a message to our European partners. Are we really serious about these issues, or are we just going through the motions? I look forward to hearing from a Member of this House who thinks it is wrong to limit the expenditure of the European Commission to what it is at the moment so that it cannot be increased. If there are such Members, I hope that they will have the courage of their convictions and stand up. If that does not happen, then I hope the Government will accept the amendment. It gives me great pleasure to have moved this modest amendment. Looking at it, I wonder whether it is too modest. On the other hand, it would be better to get this on the record than to create too much controversy.

Emma Reynolds: With characteristic modesty, the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) has presented his amendment. He also discussed the scope of clause 2, and I wish to speak to that before I come on to his amendment.
	The hon. Gentleman highlighted the fact that there is a live debate on both the shape or membership of the European Commission and on financing it. Clause 2 provides for the current formula of one Commissioner per member state to be maintained at least for the next Commission. According to the explanatory notes, it also provides for a review of that decision either before the 2019 European Commission is formed or before the 30th member state joins the EU, whichever is sooner. We are having this debate today, we had a debate on it on Second Reading and it will continue to be debated. I want to highlight some of the points that were made on Second Reading.
	There are two sides to this debate. On the one hand there is a complaint—one that I think we should listen to, and one I am sure other hon. Members will make—that the European Commission College of Commissioners has become too big and unwieldy. As the EU has grown to 27 member states—soon to be 28—there are simply too many Commissioners and that has had an effect on how it can take decisions. The other side of the argument, put powerfully and effectively by the Irish Government in recent years, is that for small member states the
	current formula of one Commissioner per member state guarantees an equality that would not otherwise be secured. That point has been made in the intergovernmental conference and the convention, in the constitutional treaty discussions and the Lisbon treaty negotiations by Ireland and other small member states, although not all. I mentioned last week that Denmark is of the opinion that although it does not want to give away that equality, it is worth giving it away in order to make the European Commission a more effective decision-making body.
	Those are the two sides to the debate. On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) and I suggested that there is a case for considering different degrees of seniority. If we were to keep one Commissioner per member state, then, as with our system of government where there is a Secretary of State and Ministers beneath that level, we could keep one Commissioner per member state, but with degrees of seniority, which might make for more effective decision-making.

David Nuttall: Does the shadow Minister think there would be any merit in a system whereby only those countries that were net contributors to the EU had a Commissioner?

Emma Reynolds: All I would say to the hon. Gentleman is that that is a fluid situation, so it would be unfair to both new and existing member states. For example, the Polish economy is the only economy that I can name, certainly in Europe, that did not go into recession after the global financial crisis hit, and so its trajectory is healthy. We would do well to remember that the success of the Polish economy might mean, sooner than the hon. Gentleman might think, that it will become a net contributor rather than a net recipient.
	On Amendment 4, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Christchurch, last autumn he and I were in the same Division Lobby calling on the Government to seek a cut in the EU budget, and we strengthened their hand in the negotiations. To an extent I agree with the spirit of his amendment and see some merit in it.
	It would be better, however, if the hon. Member for Christchurch called on the Government to prevent an increase in the administration ceiling in the EU budget. According to the comparative table we received following last Friday’s negotiations, however, that ceiling will increase by 8% over the MFF period. I do not think that such a big victory. We heard a lot of cheers earlier during the EU Council statement, but very little attention was paid to that point, and it is a point worth considering. That would be a more powerful demand for him to make of the Government than their writing into this fairly minor Bill the conditions he has set out. For that reason, I am not in favour of the amendment, although, as I said, I agree with its spirit.

David Lidington: The amendment aims to freeze the number of staff and resources available to Commissioners at the level provided for 27 Commissioners, no matter how many such Commissioners there are. It seeks, therefore, to make the UK’s approval of the draft decision to revert to the system by which every EU member state has its own Commissioner dependent on that condition being implemented. I have
	to disappoint my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) as I cannot recommend that the Committee accept his amendment. There are three reasons for that that I hope will provide him with a measure of reassurance.
	First, there are technical reasons concerning the consequences of my hon. Friend’s amendment. Secondly, there are certain safeguards within the current structure of the EU budget that mean that some of the dangers about which he is concerned ought not to arise. Thirdly, I hope to give him clear reassurances both about the Government’s robust commitment to seeking every opportunity to secure greater economies and efficiencies in EU expenditure and about some of the negotiations and instruments where those objectives that he and I share might be achieved.
	I completely share my hon. Friend’s concern about the need to improve efficiency in all EU institutions, including the European Commission, but we need to be clear about what the consequences would be were this amendment to be carried. The Bill provides simply for the approval of the draft EU Council decision on the number of EU Commissioners. The draft decision provides neither the scope to change the allocation of resources within the Commission nor the power or opportunity to influence the overall EU budgetary ceilings, the individual budget headings, either on a multi-annual or annual basis, or the allocation of resources within each of those budgetary headings. Were it to be carried, therefore, the amendment would leave the UK unable to agree to the change proposed to the number of Commissioners, but would not provide the means by which to alter EU expenditure in the way that he is seeking.

Christopher Chope: Surely if the Government were to accept this amendment all that would happen is that my right hon. Friend or the Prime Minister would go along and say to their counterparts in other European countries, “I’m afraid we can’t agree to this unless you agree that you won’t increase expenditure as a result of having additional commissioners.” They would accept that, would they not?

David Lidington: That brings me to my second point, which is that if British Ministers were to open that kind of conversation with our partners, their immediate response would be to say that such is already provided for in the European Union’s budgetary set-up. Even if the number of Commissioners increases to 28 or beyond, that cannot result in any increase in the ceiling set by the multi-annual financial framework, which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister negotiated last week at the European Council; nor can an increase in the number of Commissioners lead to an increase in annual spending limits. To paraphrase what I think my hon. Friend said in moving his amendment, if there has to be additional expenditure to provide for a new Commissioner and his or her team, it would need to be found from elsewhere in the European Union budget, subject to the ceilings set unanimously by the European Council in respect of the multi-annual framework and, subsequently, each annual budget negotiated and agreed by qualified majority vote on a 12-monthly basis, so there is a measure of safeguards already.
	Let me also make this point to my hon. Friend. I am the first to agree that when we look for efficiencies and economies, we should not be shy about looking for savings in small matters as well as large. However, we also need to be clear about what an extra Commissioner would entail. It is true that it would mean providing somewhere in the budget for a salary for that Commissioner and their immediate cabinet. That money would have to be found, within the ceilings, by sacrificing spending opportunities elsewhere, but the process would not mean the creation of entirely new directorates-general. Indeed, I can tell the House that the discussions already under way about provision for a probable new Croatian Commissioner involve the splitting up of existing directorates-general and parcelling them in a slightly different way, not adding to the overall number of new people working for the Commission. We are talking about a redistribution of responsibilities among a larger number of Commissioners.

Philip Davies: I am enjoying my right hon. Friend’s gymnastics in trying to resist the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope). Am I right in thinking that my right hon. Friend is saying that we should not worry because the overall EU budget is capped and, therefore, that if the EU wastes more money on a European Commissioner, that will just mean it has less to waste on something else? Is that really the thrust of his argument?

David Lidington: What I am saying to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch is that the objective that is explicitly sought in the amendment—to ensure that the budget does not increase as a consequence of the appointment of additional Commissioners—is a principle that is already embodied in the European Union’s budgetary arrangements, both multi-annual and annual.
	My third point is about what is perhaps the most important area. It should remain a key priority for the Government of the United Kingdom—and, I should add, for a fair number of other national Governments around the European Union—to look for ways to make the European Union more efficient in everything it does and to look for every opportunity to eliminate wasteful or unnecessary expenditure. There are a number of ways that that could be done.
	The hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) talked about a possible reconfiguration of the Commission along a senior Minister/junior Minister model. That is not something to which the UK Government are committed at the moment, but it is certainly one idea that is being discussed in think-tanks and elsewhere as a means of trying to impose not just greater efficiency, but greater coherence on the operations of the Commission. If we look at the Commission today, to provide one illustration, we have a Commissioner for External Relations, who is the High Representative on foreign policy, and we have separate Commissioners for international development, for disaster relief and for European Union enlargement. One conceivable model would be to see those four portfolios given to a Commissioner who was head of department and to subordinate Commissioners reporting to that more senior post holder. That is one way of seeking greater efficiency, but there are many others, too.

David Nuttall: My right hon. Friend is making a very good case for the Government about why this modest amendment is being resisted, but let me ask him a simple question. If my right hon. Friend does not feel that he would be able to persuade our partners in the European Union to accept such a modest amendment as this one, what hope is there of us ever being able to negotiate anything like the sorts of return of competences that would be necessary to satisfy the desires of the British people?

David Lidington: If my hon. Friend looks at what the Prime Minister achieved last week—against expectations in some parts of this House and outside it—and if he looks at the significant moves taken towards fisheries reform in recent weeks, I think he would see evidence to show that it is possible for a determined and energetic UK Government working closely with like-minded allies to secure the kind of reforms to the European Union that both he and I would wish to see enacted.

Christopher Chope: rose—

David Lidington: I will give way to my hon. Friend, but I want to return to his point about efficiencies and expenditure.

Christopher Chope: Perhaps this intervention will facilitate that. I ask my right hon. Friend whether the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) was correct in saying that the administrative ceiling is going to increase by 8%. If so, how is that consistent with everything that my right hon. Friend is saying? Why would they need to spend more money on administration?

David Lidington: I would wish heading 5 on administration to be a lot lower than was provided for in the package negotiated last week. It is up compared with 2006 to 2013, but it is down by €1 billion from the proposals brought forward by the European Commission and President Van Rompuy at the November European Council meeting. I was being told by the Commission as late as December last year that that reduction was completely impossible as it would lead to the inability to recruit staff or to deliver key services, yet there has been that significant reduction. I am the first to acknowledge to my hon. Friend that I wish we could have got unanimous agreement to go a lot further and that we need to return to the charge.

Emma Reynolds: Will the Minister confirm, however, that this is still an 8% increase from the previous period? I will give him my table if he would like to see it.

David Lidington: I may be able to put on record the exact figure later on, but I do not have it in the notes in front of me at the moment.
	The other opportunities lie in measures such as the staffing regulations for EU institutions, which are the subject of negotiations at the moment. It is those regulations that govern the salaries, the pensions, the tax status—or perhaps the non-tax status—of EU staff. Those regulations govern such matters as allowances, on which I think my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and I would be in agreement. It is impossible to justify objectively the payment of an expatriate allowance to staff who are working in Brussels rather than London or Paris and
	who have in some cases been working there for well over a decade yet still receive this expatriate allowance to recognise the apparent hardship of having to work in the Berlaymont.
	There are many opportunities that we can and should seek for reform. The Government are determined to do that, and I believe that they have strong support in the House for so doing. However, it remains in the interests of the United Kingdom for this decision to be ratified. I hope that, having heard what I have said, my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch will feel able to withdraw his amendment, and to be confident in the Government’s resolve to continue to work for the greatest possible economy and efficiency in every part of the European Union’s work.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister for his full response to the concerns that have been expressed this evening and the concerns that gave rise to my modest amendment, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) for agreeing with me in spirit, which is something that I certainly value.
	I am also grateful to the hon. Lady for drawing the Committee’s attention to the prediction that the administrative ceiling will rise by some 8%, a figure that seems to be pretty much undisputed. That demonstrates the truth of an observation made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall). If it is as difficult as it seems to have been to bring about a zero increase in the EU’s administrative budget, how difficult will it be to win back those powers and responsibilities for our own Parliament during the negotiations leading up to the referendum? That just shows how tough a job it is to make any progress in the European Union.
	I accept my right hon. Friend’s view that there are difficulties with my amendment, and that it would have, as he put it, technical consequences. However, one does despair when, following all the excitement associated with the power effectively to veto these proposals under the European Union Act 2011, as soon as we start threatening to use the veto—or even arguing for a modest amendment, or for the attachment of a condition to something that the European Union wants to change —we are told “Oh, we cannot do that, it would be ever so difficult”.
	I am sure that you share my frustration, Mr Hoyle. We discuss all this stuff, and then, when we reach the end of the debate, it seems that we have travelled no further in terms of substance. We appear to have thrown in the towel in allowing an increase in the number of Commissioners, and it will be very easy for the Commission to increase its expenditure if there is an 8% increase in its ceiling for administration.
	However, the debate has provided an opportunity for everyone to see exactly what battle we must fight with the European Union if we are to win back any substantive powers. Furthermore, because I am as concerned as many of my hon. Friends about the hard deal that people in rural areas have had as a result of the local government settlement, I do not want to eat into the time that is available for the debate on that subject by pressing for a Division. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
	Bill reported, without amendment.
	ThirdReading

David Lidington: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	I want to thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have participated in our debates on the Bill. I thank the hon. Members for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) and for Caerphilly (Wayne David) for the support that the official Opposition have given to the Bill. It has been a significant piece of legislation on two counts. First, it has been a useful test of the procedures included in the European Union Act 2011. In the Act, we committed ourselves to providing Parliament with more opportunities to scrutinise European Union business, and the Bill is evidence that we are delivering on that commitment. The requirement for debate and primary legislation to govern these decisions has added to Parliament’s hold over EU business.
	Secondly, the proceedings on the Bill have shown that the Government have been prepared to listen carefully to the views of parliamentary Committees. As was said earlier, the Government originally thought that the decision about the work programme of the Fundamental Rights Agency was exempt from the requirement for primary legislation under the 2011 Act. However, we took careful note of the serious argument put forward by the European Scrutiny Committee of this House and the European Union Select Committee of the House of Lords that that was not the case. Our legal advisers looked again at the matter, and we accepted that, on this occasion, Parliament was right. We accordingly brought forward the necessary legislation.
	I should like to put on record my gratitude for the outstanding work done by officials in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Justice on this legislation, and my thanks to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice and the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds) for their work on the earlier stages of the Bill.
	The Government believe that all three measures contained in the Bill are in the best interests of the United Kingdom, and that they are sensible and reasonable proposals. None of them will have a significant domestic impact, and none will result in any additional financial burdens being imposed on this country. I commend the Bill and its Third Reading to the House.

Emma Reynolds: As the Minister for Europe has said, this is the first Bill that the Government have introduced under the European Union Act 2011. It has constitutional significance for that reason, even though it is small. When we are debating European matters in the House, I often look to the other place for wisdom and learning, but on this occasion, I looked at Hansard and found that there had been no debate on the Bill in the other place. That was quite a disappointment. I am pleased to say that we in this House have spent many more hours deliberating on the Bill, and enunciated many more words than their lordships on it. That is to be welcomed.
	We have had good debates on Second Reading and in Committee. The Bill deals with three draft decisions, which have been well discussed. The first will give legal effect to the online version of the Official Journal of the European Union. The second will establish a multi-annual framework for the Fundamental Rights Agency. The third, which is much more controversial, deals with the maintaining of the status quo regarding the formula for the number of commissioners—that is, one commissioner per member state. As I said on Second Reading and in Committee, the debate on that matter is still live and ongoing, and we will return to it when the Commission of 2019 is created. The three decisions that are dealt with in the European Union (Approvals) Bill have the support of the Opposition. They are sensible ways forward and we support the Bill.

Martin Horwood: I just want to put on the record the Liberal Democrats’ support for the Bill. The various measures it introduces, which we have rehearsed at length on Second Reading—the multi-annual framework for the Agency for Fundamental Rights, the deal on the number of commissioners, and the e-publication of the European Parliament journal, on which we had an important debate—demonstrate the belt-and-braces approach the coalition has now brought to European scrutiny in this place.
	As should be noted, this is an historic first use of the European Union Act 2011. I congratulate the Minister and his whole team on steering the Bill through the House of Commons. Although its course was not exactly perilous, one or two rocks and stones had to be overcome.

Mark Reckless: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood). I congratulate the Minister on pursuing this Bill. Despite some of the things I have been told about the lack of
	scrutiny in Parliament of EU matters, tonight’s debate, unlike that in the other place, has demonstrated an appropriate degree of scrutiny of matters that require unanimity at the Council and a change in our domestic law.
	I am persuaded that it is perfectly sensible to allow the electronic version of the official register to be binding. The multi-annual framework for the agency is not a financial framework, and therefore is perhaps not quite as important as the own-resources cap and the need to consider an EU finance Bill in this Chamber. However, under article 312(4) of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union, it is far from certain that, even if the framework were a financial framework, it would enable the inter-institutional agreement to come into effect and allow inflation increases in that budget without the proper sanction of this House.
	The debate on the number of commissioners is really significant. The previous Labour Government entered into a deal at the European Council, whereby they would agree to a commissioner for every member state and implementing the necessary legislation at a later point, in order to try to drive the Lisbon treaty through a second Irish referendum. Had we known then that we would have this level of scrutiny here and that the decision would be dependent on a vote in this Chamber, where a Conservative-led Government have a majority, we could have made it clear that we did not agree with the Lisbon treaty. In such a situation, why should a Conservative-led Government regard themselves as signed up to a deal, negotiated by Labour, to force the Lisbon treaty through Ireland, without our having the same opportunity for a referendum in this country?
	That is a key thing we have learned, and I hope Ministers will reflect on that when they seek to renegotiate our relationship with the EU, and that they are certain that anything they may agree on at a political level will have to be delivered by the legislatures of the member states.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Backbench Business

Local Government Finance (Rural Authorities)

Neil Parish: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered the matter of the local government finance settlement for rural local authorities.
	We have only a short time for this debate—just over an hour. We were expecting a three-hour debate, but unfortunately we have been squeezed by various statements during the day and a substantial debate on Europe. However, I am happy to take interventions and will try not to speak for too long.
	One can tell by the number of Members in the Chamber that this is a very important debate—on the share of grant that rural authorities are receiving from Government —that we take extremely seriously. I very much welcome the meetings I have had with the Minister and the sympathy he has shown. What we want to do this evening is take away not just sympathy but a little money, which is a little easier to put in our pockets.
	The Department for Communities and Local Government announced the local government financial settlement for 2013-14. It will reduce central Government support to councils while doing nothing to address the long-standing inequality in funding between rural and urban councils. We are not asking for a change in the Government deficit reduction strategy, as we support the Government in taking tough decisions to tackle the budget deficit inherited from the previous Administration; a quarter of all public expenditure is accounted for by councils and that must be addressed. Instead, we are here this evening, even at this late stage, to press the Secretary of State to revise the proposed settlement and make good on the long-standing promise to correct this historical imbalance and give rural local authorities their fair share of central Government funding, in line with the summer consultation.

Graham Stuart: Does my hon. Friend agree that the rural penalty, which sees 50% more per head going to urban councils than to rural councils, cannot be justified, even by increased levels of deprivation in the urban areas? The additional cost of delivery in rural areas and of need in rural areas means that there is a demand across the country for a fairer settlement.

Neil Parish: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, because I was going to say how much I thank him for his support. He chairs the Rural Fair Share campaign, and I thank him for pursuing this issue with Ministers with such tenacity and for helping to secure this debate. I agree with him entirely that the current situation just is not fair. We are not here to rob urban authorities of their money, but we are saying clearly to the Government that there are inequalities and they must be put right.

Alan Beith: Does the damping system not make the matter worse? It says to rural authorities, “You deserve more but we are not
	going to give it to you until at least 2020. We are going to give it to authorities that will kick up a fuss if we don’t give it to them.”

Neil Parish: I shall go on to mention the damping, but it seems to have achieved the worst of all worlds. The funding issue was looked into, and the Government listened to rural authorities and said that they would move money across, but the so-called damping process has been added to the system and it seems to have made the settlement even worse than it would have been without it. That is where the Government must look again.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. May I just say to hon. Members that one or two of you wish to speak very high up on the list and I am bothered that people keep intervening? If you go down the list as a result, you will understand, because it is going to be four minutes each at this rate. Were you giving way, Mr Parish?

Ian Liddell-Grainger: indicated dissent.

Tony Cunningham: rose—

Neil Parish: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Tony Cunningham: The hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) mentioned the contrast between urban and rural areas, and the deprivation in urban areas. Does he agree that there is deprivation in rural areas, too?

Neil Parish: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention because that is precisely the point. Rural areas are often leafy and green, and it does not appear, on the face of it, that there is any deprivation there, but there is. In rural areas people often have lower wages and so even those who are working find it very difficult to pay high levels of council tax. He makes a good point.

Simon Hart: My hon. Friend will be depressed to learn that I am confused already, because we are talking about rural areas and urban areas, yet I am not aware of any line on the map that distinguishes between the two. Could he, or could the Minister, explain precisely how the difference is defined?

Neil Parish: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, because one of the arguments is about how we define what a rural authority is. Under the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs definition some rural authorities are 80% rural and some are 50% rural, whereas the DCLG has one overall view: it has added everybody together and called them rural authorities. That is one of the problems we are facing.

Anne McIntosh: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the timing of this debate, as most councils are setting their council tax at
	the moment. Does he agree that it costs more to deliver public services in rural areas, because of the increasing cost of fuel in those areas?

Neil Parish: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and there should be rural weighting. We are talking not only about the distances between villages and hamlets, but the distances between schools and the number of small schools in rural areas that are the heart of the village. If the local schools were to be destroyed, the village itself could be destroyed, so there is an awful lot to play for here.

Roger Williams: Does my hon. Friend agree that in rural areas there are often a lot of self-employed people who are reluctant to apply for benefits such as free school meals, which are sometimes a measure of deprivation? Rural areas therefore lose out in that way as well.

Neil Parish: My hon. Friend raises an interesting point about how we define the rural population and how we define depravity— [Interruption.] Perhaps I should refer to those who are deprived, rather than to depravity. I still want to make a serious point, because there is a problem with how the statistics are compiled and how judgment is made on rural areas. We in rural areas are all supposed to be wealthy and are asked to pay a great deal more of overall local government spending in our council tax.

Anne-Marie Morris: Does my hon. Friend agree that sometimes the rural authorities that have been the most careful—doing the right thing—are the most penalised? For example, Devon has saved £100 million in the past three years, yet its gross value added has declined over seven years and is now 78% of the UK average.

Neil Parish: Again, one of my hon. Friends raises a good point, because this has been going on for a long time. It went on under the previous Government and, dare I say, probably went on slightly under the previous Conservative Government. In those days, I was in local government. Savings were made and we cut our cloth accordingly, but along came the Government saying, “You have been so careful with your spending that you can now cut it some more.” I wonder whether central Government recognise those authorities, such as Devon and others, that have spent money wisely and made savings, yet are asked to make further reductions. The Minister is extremely concerned to make this fair, but we need not only to talk about it, but to sort it out.
	Let us consider, for instance, the amount raised in council tax. Rural authorities such as Mid Devon and East Devon, which I represent, will raise in council tax nearly twice as much as, say, a local authority such as Greenwich. Therefore, rural populations are not only not getting a fair share of grant, but have to fund much more of local government spending from council tax.
	The Government spend a lot of time talking about the overall spending power of a council, but I would argue that it is how we get to that spending power that matters. If we are asking our local residents and council
	tax payers to provide much more of that spend via their council tax than those in urban authorities do, we in the countryside are being over-taxed and, dare I say, urban authorities are being slightly under-taxed. We were told last year that that would be put right.

Annette Brooke: Will my hon. Friend consider the fact that the higher council tax paid by many rural authorities is a reflection of the increased cost of service delivery? It is hardly likely to be due to inefficiencies.

Neil Parish: Yes. My hon. Friend makes a good point, because there is an extra cost in delivering services in rural areas and rural authorities. However, whatever the cost of delivering a service, we cannot get away from the inequality in how much is given in Government grant to rural authorities compared to urban. I expected and still expect—I have great expectations of the Minister and of the coalition Government—the promise of equal shares for rural authorities to be delivered on.

Jonathan Djanogly: The point is that we want fairness. We know that the pot had to be reduced, but we were promised that whatever the pot was, it would be more fairly handed out. Not only is that not happening, but it has now been put off until after the next general election.

Neil Parish: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Back in 2004 we saw funding drift away from rural authorities towards urban authorities and we thought that now there would be a rebalancing, but that is not happening and, as he says, we will have to wait until almost 2020 before that is put right.
	If we do not get this year’s settlement right, lower funding for rural authorities will follow in subsequent years. We will see many changes, especially in district councils, where business rates will be retained, but the amount that they are able to spend will still be controlled by central Government. That is why this year’s settlement is particularly important.

David Ruffley: On that point, in my 15 years as a Member of Parliament I do not think I have seen such anger on the part of rural council leaders in Mid Suffolk district council. One of the most numerate of councillors I have ever met, Councillor Derrick Haley, who has cut services to the bone and been incredibly efficient and innovative, is incredibly angry. Has my hon. Friend picked up that sense of anger from very competent, diligent and loyal Conservative council leaders?

Neil Parish: My hon. Friend is right. The position is the same in Devon, where the Devon county council leader made enough savings to get through the current budget and was going forward well, but his budget was cut yet again. That is the problem. Devon is reputed to have more roads than Belgium, for instance, which is why the cost of repair, particularly after the floods, is so large. [Interruption.] It is absolutely true. There are more roads in Devon than there are in Belgium.
	Rural authorities have to deal with high fuel prices, and the cost of education in schools is much higher. Devon is the 244th lowest in the table for school funding.
	All these factors need to be taken into consideration by the Government so that we get a fair share. I have much more to say, but in order to give colleagues time to speak—

James Paice: If my hon. Friend is drawing his remarks to a close, which would be a shame, may I urge him to address the issue that he promised to come on to, which was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), about damping? It will mean that rural authorities will not see the gains to which they are entitled before 2020 and probably not at all.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. We have already used 14 minutes, and every time we carry on, we are going to lose some speakers. It is that serious.

Neil Parish: I accept what you say, Mr Deputy Speaker, so I will bring my remarks to a close. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice). We looked at moving funds in a more equal way towards rural authorities. I do not know who it frightened in the system, but it obviously frightened somebody. They came up with a damping process which, in my view, made matters worse. I know from speaking to the Minister that he is very keen to put things right. I shall be interested to hear what he says this evening about bringing back some of the funding that has been taken away by damping. That is what we are after tonight. We do not expect vast pots of new money, but we want to see our situation get better; instead, it just seems to get worse.
	We look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about directing a fair share of funding towards rural authorities and making sure that this settlement does not prolong the agony of poor settlements for rural authorities for many more years.

Helen Goodman: I congratulate the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) on introducing this debate and the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) on the good work that he has been doing in running the all-party group on rural services.
	I want to make it absolutely clear that this is not just an issue for Government Members; Labour Members are also concerned about it.

Tony Cunningham: I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that this is not a party political issue. Cumbria county council is controlled by Labour and Conservative councillors, and they think that the situation is unfair.

Helen Goodman: Precisely—it is unfair. There is a lot of deprivation in rural areas, many of which in my constituency are former mining areas and old mining villages where the levels of deprivation are among the highest in the country. That is also true of Cumbria and in Derbyshire.
	It is important to consider why service delivery is more expensive in the countryside. Distance issues that do not apply in urban areas mean that the costs of
	delivering village schools, school transport, health services, social care, transport to hospitals and ambulance services all shoot up.

Andrew Bingham: In a two-tier authority, all the things the hon. Lady mentioned that cost more because of rurality would relate to a county council. Does she agree that there are also extra costs to rurality at the district level?

Helen Goodman: The hon. Gentleman is right. On roads, for example, in my constituency there is not only the cost of their upkeep but of dealing with the snow, and the bus network covers 900 sq km. He will immediately see that huge costs are falling on Durham county council.
	We need to have more community centres and village halls—extra facilities to deal with the fact that people cannot be expected to travel all the time to reach their public services. Last month I had a particularly poignant example involving a training centre in a village that is needed because the bus fares are so high to get to the further education college in the main town. Unfortunately, because of the cuts in the local government settlement, Coundon and Leeholme community partnership found that the training centre was going to have to close. That is a terrible problem for the people in the village, who will not be able to afford the training that they need.
	School transport is also a significant problem. It is absurd for children to be walking 3 miles to and from school every day, as is possible under the law at the moment. Such laws were instituted in the days when there was not a lot of traffic on the roads as there is now. We really need to pay attention to these special rural issues.
	I want to say a couple of things about the system. The summer consultation showed that rural areas were gaining more than £30 million, but those gains were lost because of damping, as the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton said. A one-off grant of £8.5 million has been provided to some authorities for 2013-14, but there is apparently no plan to continue with the grant beyond that period. It would be helpful if the Minister could tell us his plans for future years, because rural areas have lost proportionately more than urban areas. I want to raise with him a specific point about Durham.

Don Foster: Will the hon. Lady provide the House with the information that she suggests exists? The truth, as I am sure she will agree, is that as a result of the adjustment the reduction in spending for predominantly rural areas is less than the reduction in spending for other forms of authority.

Helen Goodman: Given that Durham county council faces a 40% cut over the spending period, I could not possibly agree with the right hon. Gentleman’s contention.
	At the start of last week, the Government announced an extra £8.5 million for rural areas. A list was published on Monday by the Department for Communities and Local Government indicating that County Durham would benefit by £224,000. Later in the week a further, revised list was published in which Durham’s £224,000 had disappeared. The allocations for other areas had also been taken from the list. What is happening to Durham? Why were we on the list in the first place?
	Why are we not on the list now? What has the Minister done, not just with our county, but with others that have been moved off the list?
	It is clear that rural fire authorities have suffered a larger fall in their grant than urban ones, even when their share of the £8.5 million is included. Rural council taxes are an average of £75 a head more than urban council taxes. That is because of the extra costs of delivering services in rural areas, not because rural authorities are less efficient. The result is that rural authorities will be at least £60 million worse off than they might reasonably have expected to be next year.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: May I say, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the telling off you gave me was the nicest one I have ever had?
	I want to give a practical view of where we are. West Somerset district council—my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) knows it well, but it will be better known to most colleagues as Exmoor—has 30,000 people in 260 square miles. It has a budget of just £5 million and is in severe financial difficulties. One of its problems, not just now, but over many years—this goes back a long time—is that it has battled against various Government cuts. It has now got to the stage where, unless severe decisions are made, it will no longer exist. It has had to sign a protocol with Taunton Deane council—the next-door borough council, which, I am glad to say, is Conservative—enabling it to be helped with both the budget and the taking over of resources.
	The Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis) has been to West Somerset to help, so he is well aware that the grant has been cut over many years. Although he has managed to find the council a bit more money this time around, it is only worth 1%, or £45,000. A 3.7% increase in rates is only about £40,000, given the low base.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) made the point about the cost of living in rural areas. It shows in West Somerset. Unfortunately, if this situation continues, West Somerset will not be the only one. I can assure all colleagues that other district councils will be in the same position in a few years.

Caroline Nokes: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the significant problems is that the cost of delivering services in rural areas has simply not been reassessed for many years and that it is high time that that reassessment took place?

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. The hon. Lady was at the very top of the list, but she has now dropped down. I did warn people what would happen.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. She knows from her own constituency how difficult it is to live in rural areas where the cost of care, of the
	school run and of everything else is high. I know that she does a marvellous job for her constituency and that she will continue to do so.
	Sedgemoor district council is at the other end of my constituency. It has a much more successful base, but it is still under enormous pressure because of the differential. It builds huge warehouses and does so much to bring in industry. It has been very successful, but it is still 20% behind. If we do not address this situation now, not only will a lot of councils opt out, but how will we get councillors? Why would somebody become a councillor in an organisation that may well disappear on their watch? It is just not going to happen. It is becoming more obvious that, unless a decision is made quickly, local government may not last until 2020. The decision has to be made in this financial year, or the next at the outside.
	The two options are either to cut urban or put up rural. That is it—there is not a lot else we can do. The Minister has to decide which way we go. It will not be easy, because we do not have the money, but quite simply something must be done if we do not want all our district councils to disappear and turn into great unitary councils and if we are to keep the local democracy that so many people across Torridge and West Devon and so much of this House hold dear.
	I plead for West Somerset council, because I think that it needs to survive. The Minister and everyone else have done their best, but the odds are still skewed against it. On that note, I will not detain the House any longer.

Graham Stuart: It is a pleasure to take part in this debate.
	I chair the Rural Fair Share campaign with my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson) and the hon. Member for Workington (Sir Tony Cunningham). The campaign has support across the House, as the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) suggested in her powerful speech, which I hope Ministers listened to closely.
	The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland highlighted the cost of delivering services. One does not need to be a public service economist to understand that point; one just needs to look at a map. If one adds to that the fact that rural areas have older populations than urban areas—populations that are ageing quickly—and the costs of domiciliary care, one can feel the immense pressure that there is on the system in rural areas.
	As has been said, rural areas have been poorly funded for a long time compared with urban areas, despite the fact that the costs of delivery are often higher. Overall, rural residents earn less than people in urban areas, but pay council tax that is £75 per head higher. Therefore, rural people, having paid more out of a lower income base, have a level of spending power for services that is lower than that in urban areas. There is no evidential base for that fundamentally unfair situation. That is the point that I hope Ministers will take on board.
	There is a rural penalty that sees urban areas get 50% more per head in central Government funding than rural areas. That position is indefensible. If it is not indefensible, we would like the Government, who must have done the analysis, to explain to us why it is
	just and reasonable for people in rural areas, many of whom are elderly and on low incomes, to be so unfairly treated.

James Paice: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I know that I am not on your list, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I want to challenge my hon. Friend because he has rightly referred to the Department’s statistics and comparisons. Over the past few weeks since this has become a topic of such serious concern, there has been a lot of dispute between Ministers and sparse rural local authorities. Will my hon. Friend spare a minute or even half a minute of his speech to explain what that difference of opinion is and why those of us who represent rural local authorities differ seriously from the Department?

Graham Stuart: I thank my right hon. Friend. I will explain the position. A year ago, a delegation went to see the Prime Minister to deal with this issue. In the summer, the Department consulted on a new way of looking at things that recognised the increased cost of sparsity in the formula. It came out with a figure that looked very promising in respect of reducing the 50% rural penalty. It then damped 75% of the gain away so that there was a 2 percentage point closing of the gap from a 50% rural penalty to one of merely 48%.
	When the December settlement came out, our first analysis showed that that 2 percentage point gain had been wiped out. In fact, it had been entirely reversed and we were looking at a 2 percentage point increase in the rural penalty. We met the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), who is responding to this debate—he has been most helpful in having meetings—but we struggled to get the position of the officials on the numbers that the Rural Services Network had come up with. It turned out that 500,000 people had been added to the population of London. When that information is put in, the 2 percentage point increase per head turns into a 0.2 percentage point narrowing.
	The good news, which I can share with the House, is that the Government’s settlement takes a 50% rural penalty and reduces it by 0.2 percentage points to 49.8%. As I understand it, that is why technically the Government can claim that there has been a narrowing of the gap. It is pretty minuscule and nothing like the closing of the gap that we were talking about in the summer, which even then was derisory. Ministers are right, if they are doing so, to hold their heads in shame at that situation. [Interruption.] Was that too harsh?
	I say to those on the Front Benches that Members participating in this debate come from across the House. We are looking for a fairer settlement and we hoped and expected that the Government would look at the issue on an evidential basis. We are not seeing that and it is not good enough. There will be a vote on Wednesday, and I hope that those on the Front Benches will consider carefully the speeches made this evening. All Government Members support the need for austerity and strict control of the spending envelope, and we do not argue for greater Government spending. We are saying, however, that at a time of limited resources, the allocation of those resources is more, not less, important. It may be politically more difficult and challenging and take some courage, but if less resource is around, we cannot afford
	to punish further those who have already put up with too much. That is our message to those on the Front Benches, and I sincerely hope they will listen.

Geoffrey Cox: My hon. Friends who preceded me have expressed with elegance and precision the real points, and I hope that Ministers on the Front Bench—it is good to see the Secretary of State in his place today—will discover deep down a will to remedy this issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger) set out the problem for West Somerset, and said that other districts in similar positions will face precisely the same predicaments just a year or two down the line.
	I represent one or two such districts—Torridge district council and West Devon borough council are small, highly rural councils both facing an existential threat from the proposals in this settlement. Although West Devon council’s needs assessment was raised by 60%, the effect of damping is to reduce the overall funding settlement by 2.5%. Over the next three years it must take out £1.4 million from a budget of £7.5 million. It has already saved £1.5 million over the past three years, and the five years before that it saved £2.5 million by sharing back-office services with South Hams district council. My question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is: where is the council to find the money?
	West Devon council scrutinised with anxious care the “50 ways to save” document published by the Department which is, if I may say so, a practical manual full of common sense. There is one problem, however, because it has already implemented 47 of the 50 measures. Only three are left and they might have a marginal and peripheral effect. That is why West Devon council—which I use as a case study only— is facing over the next three years the need to take £1.4 million from a budget of £7.5 million. It has no serious revenue asset base; its council tax is already at a high level and it has been obliged to disobey the strictures of the Secretary of State by failing to freeze council tax.
	Since the Secretary of State is present, let me say that I appreciate his robust style. Government Members love him; we think he is an asset to the Conservative party and to the Government. However, I plead with him: could he temper his language just a little? There are hundreds of good Conservative councillors up and down the length and breadth of the country who from time to time listen to his words and misunderstand. We know he does not mean it; we know it is just a joke. We know he is only teasing and that he is doing it in a loving way. The truth is, however, that those Conservative councillors—and other councillors—need to be loved and not always criticised. They are facing precisely the problem that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset so eloquently set out, and a situation that is simply untenable over the next three or four years.
	It is no good producing £8.5 million from the back of the sofa for this year only; they will have to produce it over the next few years as well. I say to Ministers on the Front Bench that we cannot go on fudging and dodging the issue. These small district and borough councils are facing a serious threat, and I urge Ministers to take it as seriously as it deserves.

Annette Brooke: I shall be brief. My constituency has four principal authorities, with a mix of urban and rural that makes life quite difficult. In any event, I see clearly the concerns of Purbeck district council, part of which lies in my constituency. It is obvious that rural councils will be subject to extra costs when delivering services, but the question is, “How much extra cost?”
	I would like to make a plea for some work to be done on this question. Presumably, there was some work done on it, because originally the local government settlement was looking most promising, with some consideration given to increasing funding in relation to sparsity, which was excellent. But then along came damping, followed by the £8.5 million grant, which is positive, but for one year only. I want some transparency. What is the deficit? If we knew that, and we could all see what the position was, people would feel happier. Hearing about 1% and 2%, or that rural councils are really better off, is confusing. Why cannot we have a clear, pat answer —the position is this, because of that. I do not see that that should be beyond the bounds of possibility.
	While the average awarded in Government grant per head of population last year was £487, or £324 for rural areas, Purbeck received only £215 per head. Average council tax in England is £398, but in Purbeck it is £594. Everything is exaggerated as we go through the figures. The pre-damping figure for Purbeck was £295,000, but post-damping it is £121,000. Surprise, surprise, when we get the share of the £8.5 million grant, it is a mere £6,879 for Purbeck, which will not give a great deal of scope for finding more efficiencies, if indeed there is any more to do.
	We have a problem. We have reduced local government expenditure and they have implemented so many cuts. We have the battle between the councils, but we can only be sure that we are getting the best deal for our residents if we have total transparency and figures provided to us that actually explain the situation rather than blurring it.

Caroline Nokes: The stark contrast between rural and urban areas is clearly demonstrated in my constituency, part of which is drawn from the urban unitary area of Southampton and the rest from the rural area served by Test Valley borough council and Hampshire county council. They are good councils working hard to deliver top-quality services at the most economic cost. They are rightly proud of their combined record in that regard, but they face difficult challenges because of the very nature of the geography they must cover.
	Hampshire is a county where town and country often meet, and where it is not unusual even within boroughs for there to be massive contrasts between the relatively highly populated urban centres and the vast rural areas where populations are much more spread out; where schools serve vast areas but comparatively fewer children; where refuse collection is much more challenging just because of the sheer miles to be covered; and where there are real problems in delivering adult social care because the distances for carers to travel between elderly residents in need of assistance are significant.
	Those of us representing rural areas can point to examples, and what we see as the challenges, but the difficulty is that there is little hard evidence. Instinctively, we may feel and see differences between rural and urban, but research by the Department is desperately needed to assess the extent of the disparity. Rural councils cannot demand comparative evidence from their urban neighbours in order to make a proper comparison, but such a comparison is desperately needed.
	In Hampshire, a population of 1.3 million is spread over 1,400 square miles—it is the largest county in the south-east of England. But its size brings about very real challenges. The 5,000 miles of road not only need to be maintained properly, at a cost of £60 million a year, including Operation Resilience, which completely resurfaces Hampshire’s roads, but—as we can see today—those same roads need to be gritted and snow-ploughed.
	Of course, we cannot guarantee that residents will live in the most accessible parts of the county. We cannot be assured that schools will be easy to access. In Hampshire, there are 500 schools varying in size from just 50 pupils up to 1,800. In small villages in particular, delivering education presents a challenge and prevents councils from achieving economies of scale. In the Southampton part of my constituency, primary schools have an average number on roll of nearly 250, whereas in some of my village schools the figure is only 50. That is not to say that provision is any harder or easier; it is just different.
	Councils that have to provide services such as education and transport have become expert at doing so. However, in many instances it is more and more of a struggle to cut their cloth sufficiently sparingly to go around. As I said earlier, it is important to have comparators and that a reassessment be done, so that when we stand in this Chamber and make the case for rural areas we can do so from a base of knowledge and evidence

Sarah Wollaston: Today we have seen a welcome announcement in the House: a rise in the threshold for eligibility to social care to £123,000 and the improvement of having a total cap on care costs. However, this will have huge implications for local authorities, because it will bring many more people into statutory eligibility for care. This will not come into force for several years, but the settlements in place now will have long-term implications for the future, and great implications for rural areas and rural authorities such as Devon, the fifth-oldest of all the local authority areas in England. The implications will combine with the similar kind of arrangements that occur, for example, in health.
	Increasingly, there is a trend towards prioritising funding to address health inequality, rather than focusing on health need. The older one is, the greater one’s care needs.

Graham Stuart: Ageist.

Sarah Wollaston: It is ageist. We need to consider what elderly people require. How can we justify the fact that older patients in inner-city authorities have three times the amount spent on their cancer care than those living in a rural authority? For any condition that we might want to consider—be it diabetes, arthritis or dementia—
	rural local authorities’ needs will be higher. How do we justify to our elderly constituents, or to a carer for someone with dementia, that they are entitled to less? Why do we rate the value of an elderly person with dementia so much less in a rural area such as Devon than we do in an inner-city area?
	We have to consider health inequalities, but other parts of the budget are more appropriately considered as modifiable areas for change. However, many conditions are not modifiable as health inequality issues. Will the Minister say what can be done to address health and social care needs? It is not just about addressing need, but the cost of delivering care. It might take a care worker in Devon 40 minutes to travel between appointments, whereas distances and costs will be far less in inner-city areas. There is also the consideration of whether a care worker can be found at all in many rural areas. Will those on the Front Bench consider the challenge of rurality? To be deprived in a rural area is to be additionally deprived. I hope that Ministers will address that by distributing funding more equitably to rural areas.

Rory Stewart: There is the possibility that those on the Front Bench will have a weary cynicism about this debate—a feeling that statistics are being thrown around, that special pleading is going on, names of councils being showered down on them, and figures of 50% or 2% and different definitions and so on being mentioned, but the point, of course, that hon. Members are making on both sides of the House is not about councils, but about rural communities and the very particular situation in which rural communities in Britain find themselves after 50 years of intense fragility.
	We are talking not about individuals, wealthy second-home owners or people who retire to the countryside, but about organic, living communities of the sort that we prize in this country and that everyone in the Chamber prizes—communities containing young families, living small farms and a living school. Those things desperately depend on how rural councils are funded, however, and they face a perfect storm. Ministers are not the only people putting pressures on them. It is important to understand the overall context in which agri-environmental schemes, the huge movement towards supermarkets and capitalism itself have eroded rural communities. This is simply the last straw on the camel’s back. For all the reasons we have heard in the House—sparse population, fuel poverty, cost of living—these communities now face a serious crisis. Whatever we do with the 50% or the 2%, rural councils have inherited a situation in which they are significantly less well funded per head than urban councils.

Andrew Bingham: As my hon. Friend points out, this situation has been going on for a long time, so does he share my disappointment that, although we thought that this would finally be dealt with and that rural communities would get their fair share, that does not appear to be happening?

Rory Stewart: That is an excellent point. Perhaps Ministers will address the fact that this is an inherited situation, stretching back to the ’60s and the ’70s, and relating to the debts of urban councils and the types of
	assets that urban councils possess. The financial settlement was not designed to address real instances of deprivation or to take into account the indexes of deprivation that we all experience day to day—the cost of heating rural homes, the cost of living and so on.
	The nub of the argument, however, has to be about the communities themselves—about why we care about them and wish to keep vibrant, living, organic communities alive. There are three reasons: first, there will come a time when we treasure the food security offered by those small farms, which do not exist independent of the funding that the council is prepared to provide for schools, transport or housing; secondly, tourism, which is one of the most rapidly growing sectors in the rural economy, is dependent not on our weather or food, but on a living landscape of humans; and finally, the fact that this is something deeply precious to Britain. In this the 21st century, our country has the privilege of being one of the most advanced developed countries in the world. We can set an example to other countries of how an advanced industrial economy should behave, what kind of civilisation and future we want and what kind of landscape we imagine for our grandchildren. The decision that Ministers make today will determine that: it will determine whether instead of a network of small farms, organic communities and vibrant villages, we end up with nothing but a wilderness for millionaires.

Chris Williamson: This has been a very interesting and important debate, and I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) on leading it.
	The Opposition would not support a drift of funding from deprived urban authorities in order to make up the shortfall in rural authorities, but that is not to say that the rural authorities do not have a important case —a case that has been eloquently put by hon. Members this evening.

Dan Rogerson: The hon. Gentleman will know that that has been the situation over decades, as we have heard from other Members, but we are not talking about just an urban-rural split. Larger county councils in other parts of the country, such as the south-east, are demonstrably overfunded, whereas councils and authorities such as Cornwall are underfunded. This is not an urban-rural thing; it is about looking at where the need is and ensuring the money gets there.

Chris Williamson: The complexity of local government funding is certainly an issue, but when the hon. Gentleman refers to an historic problem, I remind him that in every year of the Labour Government, local government saw growth in its budgets. Only since the election of the Conservative-Liberal coalition have we seen a huge reduction in funding for local government. Of course we must argue for a fair share for rural authorities, but that should not be achieved at the expense of urban authorities.

Helen Goodman: Does my hon. Friend agree with the contention that the freeze only really helps authorities in the south-east with high house prices? Is he aware that of the 17 authorities with projected increases in
	spending power for 2014-15—the year after the £8.5 million one-off grant—no fewer than 14 are in the London commuter belt, while rural areas feature heavily among those facing the biggest reductions?

Chris Williamson: My hon. Friend draws attention to a real problem with the council tax freeze grant, as have Government Members this evening. Local authorities of every political persuasion have seen through the Secretary of State’s wheeze. For many local authorities, taking the grant would clearly create significant problems down the road. That is why we are seeing Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Labour authorities refusing to take the grant, for very good reasons.
	We have heard contributions this evening from my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), who we have just heard from again, and the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), who spoke passionately about the need for a fairer settlement—although, rather paradoxically, he also said he supported the Government’s austerity programme. It seems to me that he cannot have it both ways.

Graham Stuart: This is about the allocation and getting a fair share—hence the name of the Rural Fair Share campaign. We were going to have to control public expenditure whoever was in office; this is about recognising the need to look even more carefully to ensure a fair division based on need.

Chris Williamson: I hope the hon. Gentleman would agree, however, that it would be completely unfair to impose even deeper cuts on some of the most deprived local authorities in urban areas. The real issue is that the Secretary of State volunteered to accept unprecedented funding cuts—far higher than those for any other Department—in local government. The blame rests fairly and squarely on his shoulders; he has let down local government in rural and urban areas alike.
	We also heard from the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke), who made a significant contribution in calling for greater clarity about funding for local government. She made the point that there is no scope in her local authority for more efficiencies. She and others have seen through yet another scam from the Secretary of State: his “50 ways to save” document. Let me tell him that all local authorities have been doing that for years. I do not understand what he is talking about when he issues such a document. It might make a good soundbite in a press release, but he is not living in the real world.
	We also heard from the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), who talked about the cost of delivering health and social care needs in rural areas and referred to the cost of rurality. It was interesting that the Secretary of State, sotto voce, did not seem to understand the term “rurality”. Perhaps that is an indication of the sort of problems that local government in rural areas is suffering from.
	Finally, the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) talked about the importance of communities, but when the Secretary of State agreed the unprecedented
	cuts in local government funding, he drove a metaphorical knife into the heart of local communities up and down our country.

Richard Drax: I regret the tone and the personalisation. As far as Government Members are concerned, this debate is about the share for rural communities from an inherited budget that, as the hon. Gentleman will know, left this country in a terrible state. It is about the share for rural communities; that is what we are trying to fight for.

Chris Williamson: I remind the hon. Gentleman that there was a worldwide banking crisis and that it was Margaret Thatcher who deregulated the financial markets. The problems can be traced back to the big bang and the deregulation of those financial markets.

Duncan Hames: rose—

Chris Williamson: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.
	What I regret is the Secretary of State letting down or betraying local government. Again, it is important to understand that it was this Secretary of State who volunteered for the biggest single reduction in Government funding of every Government Department. Government Members might not like to hear that, but that is the truth of the matter. If the Secretary of State had stood up for local government, local councils would not be in the parlous situation in which they find themselves.

Duncan Hames: rose—

Chris Williamson: It is clear that the rural authorities are by no means the only authorities to have been dealt an almighty body blow by this Government—far from it. Councils in the north, councils in the south, councils in the east, councils in the west, county councils, district councils, borough councils, metropolitan councils, unitary councils, councils that serve urban areas and councils that serve rural areas: all have suffered at the hands of this Secretary of State. As I have already said, if he had done his job properly, today’s debate would not have been necessary.

Duncan Hames: I thank the hon. Gentleman for eventually giving way. Of course, his Government reduced the number of councils in Wiltshire and Cornwall that were underfunded in rural areas by abolishing them. Given that he has not found any alternative source for making the distribution of funds fairer, is the best he can offer to councils in Somerset and Devon the same prescription as his Government dealt those rural councils in Wiltshire and Cornwall?

Chris Williamson: Not at all. We are not making that point in any way, shape or form. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has made it clear that Labour’s policy is to give a fair deal, a new deal, for local government and to allow local government on the ground to determine the shape of local government, rather than it being imposed from the top. The local authorities to which the hon. Gentleman refers wanted the local changes brought about by the Secretary of State at that time.

Mr Speaker: Has the hon. Gentleman concluded his remarks?

Chris Williamson: In the interests of brevity, I will sit down and allow the—

Mr Speaker: The hon. Gentleman does not need to make a speech about it, but we are grateful to him.

Brandon Lewis: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) on securing today’s important debate. It seems ironic that the first time I am at the Dispatch Box at this time of night since the last time I was here at this time of night, we are debating rural areas looking for fair funding. Last time, it was about urban areas, and Newcastle Members and others made the same sort of case for those areas.
	I shall have to keep my remarks relatively short, as the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) talked for some time, and I want to ensure that my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton gets the chance to sum up. If I do not cover everything Members have brought up this evening, I would be happy for them to come and see me—now or over the next few months—as we continue to argue passionately and with great determination over the issues raised tonight. However, as one of my hon. Friends commented a few moments ago, the tone of the debate changed dramatically when the hon. Member for Derby North decided to avoid the fact that it was the last Government who had pledged £52 billion in local government cuts. Labour Members have seemed not to want to discuss that in any way, while opposing every change and every reduction that we have introduced to deal with the deficit that we inherited from their Government. That cannot give any credibility to what they say about the money that is needed for local authorities.
	The hon. Gentleman spoke of standing up for local government. What he should have observed tonight, and over the past few weeks, is the Secretary of State and other Government Members standing up for their local residents, for their communities, and for the hard-working taxpayers for whom we have introduced the council tax freeze option.

Chris Williamson: In that spirit—the spirit of Government Members standing up for their communities —will the Minister invite the Secretary of State to stand up for local government throughout the country, and argue with the Treasury the case for giving it a fairer share of the cake? Does he accept that its funding has been cut by 28%, which is a far larger reduction than any imposed by other Departments?

Brandon Lewis: I thought that the hon. Gentleman had something to say that was different from what he had already said. Again, he avoided mentioning the £52 billion of cuts that his party had pledged to make. My point is that Government Members, including the Secretary of State, are standing up for the people whom we are elected to stand up for—the hard-working residents who will benefit from the council tax freeze that this Government are providing.
	Let me say in the few moments that I have left that the thinking behind this local government financial settlement took into account ways in which councils can make progress in the years ahead, and that we believe it to be fair to both north and south and to both rural and urban communities. As others have pointed out, we have managed—although, I recognise, not to the extent that some would have liked—to reduce the gap between rural and urban. We have made adjustments to relative needs formulas to reflect the greater cost of providing services in rural areas. That is one of only three formula changes in the settlement. We have increased the weight of super-sparse areas in the formula, doubled the sparsity weight for older people’s social care, reinstated the sparsity adjustment for county-level environmental protective and cultural services, and introduced a sparsity adjustment for fire and rescue. As a result, funding per head is falling by less in predominantly rural authorities than in predominantly urban authorities, in all classes.

Graham Stuart: Members on both sides of the House are concerned about the 2014-15 settlement and the position up to 2020. Can my hon. Friend assure us that Ministers will be willing to discuss next year’s settlement, and to ensure that we get the settlements right from then onwards?

Brandon Lewis: I can confirm that. I have had a few meetings with my hon. Friend, and he has—rightly—made a powerful case for people in rural areas. I can tell him that I shall be happy to continue to talk to Members from all parts of the country about next year’s settlement.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger) raised the position of West Somerset. I have visited West Somerset and met the council leader a number of times. I know my hon. Friend will agree that, given its critical mass—the area has just 35,000 residents—it must consider sharing management and services with other authorities.
	There is much more to be said about this subject. I shall be happy to meet Members individually to discuss it with them, but I want to ensure that my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton has a couple of minutes in which to sum up the debate.

Neil Parish: I welcome the powerful speeches that have been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger), my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox), the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke), my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), and my hon. Friends the Members for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) and for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart). My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) would have liked to contribute, but, like many other Members, was not able to do so.
	The extent of the support for this evening’s debate is clear from the number of Members who are present. I am sorry that more time was not available. I think that we should seek either a Westminster Hall debate or another debate in the Chamber, because it is clear that Members have more to say.
	I welcome what was said by the Minister, who dealt with us very fairly. However, I ask him to listen, and to ensure not only that the words with which he is provided by his civil servants show that money has been given to rural authorities, but that those words result in cash and not just statistics. This is not about spending power; it is about what the councils are given in grant. We are seeking a fair share, and Members across the House have made a powerful case for that tonight. I welcome the fact that the Minister will look at the funding for 2014-15, because that is important. I thank everyone for supporting the debate tonight.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House has considered the matter of the local government finance settlement for rural local authorities.

Business without Debate

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

POLITICAL PARTIES, NORTHERN IRELAND

That the draft Control of Donations and Regulation of Loans etc (Extension of the Prescribed Period) (Northern Ireland) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 5 December 2012, be approved. —(Mr Swayne.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE

That the draft Local Authorities (Public Health Functions and Entry to Premises by Local Healthwatch Representatives) Regulations 2012, which were laid before this House on 10 December 2012, be approved. —(Mr Swayne.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

SOCIAL SECURITY

That the draft Universal Credit, Personal Independence Payment, Jobseeker’s Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 2013, which were laid before this House on 10 December 2012, be approved. —(Mr Swayne.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

That the draft Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2013, which were laid before this House on 8 January, be approved. —(Mr Swayne.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

CRIMINAL LAW

That the draft Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003 (Designation of Participating Countries) (England, Wales and Northern Ireland) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 8 January, be approved. —(Mr Swayne.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

CONTRACTING OUT

That the draft Local Authorities (Contracting Out of Tax Billing, Collection and Enforcement Functions) (Amendment) (England) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 14 January, be approved. —(Mr Swayne.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

COUNCIL TAX

That the draft Council Tax Reduction Schemes (Detection of Fraud and Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2013, which were laid before this House on 14 January, be approved. —(Mr Swayne.)
	Question agreed to.

REGULATING EUROPEAN POLITICAL PARTIES

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119(1)),
	That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 13842/12, draft proposal for a Regulation on the statute and funding of European political parties and European political foundations, No. 13777/12, a Commission working document prefiguring the proposal for an amendment to the Financial Regulation introducing a new title on the financing of European political parties, and No. 17469/12, a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU Euratom) No. 966/2012 as regards the financing of European political parties; notes that these proposals are still being considered by the Council; and supports the Government’s position that the UK, along with other Member States, should seek further clarification on a number of points before negotiations progress further. —(Mr Swayne.)
	Question agreed to.

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE (22 MARCH)

Motionmade,
	That this House shall sit on Friday 22 March.—( Mr Swayne.)

Hon. Members: Object.

HUMAN RIGHTS (JOINT COMMITTEE)

Ordered,
	That Mr Dominic Raab be discharged from the Joint Committee on Human Rights and Mr Robert Buckland be added. —(Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

JUSTICE

Ordered,
	That Mr Robert Buckland and Robert Neill be discharged from the Justice Committee and Gareth Johnson and Mike Weatherley be added. —(Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

PETITION
	 — 
	West Lancashire Developments

Rosie Cooper: I wish to acknowledge the work done by the members of Burscough Action Group to collect 4,016 signatures alongside securing a 96% opposition vote in a parish poll on proposals in the West Lancashire Local Plan to develop Yew Tree Farm in Burscough. In particular, I would like to thank Gill Bjork, Michelle Blair and Gavin Rattray for their commitment to keep fighting the corner of Burscough residents. I am presenting this petition to the House this evening to give the residents of Burscough who have signed it the voice that they feel they have been denied by West Lancashire borough council. I would therefore like to present a petition of residents of West Lancashire.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of residents of West Lancashire,
	Declares that the Petitioners reject the proposed developments by West Lancashire Borough Council in their West Lancashire Local Plan because of the following detrimental effects; the loss of Green Belt and agricultural land, the loss of a safety buffer between residential and industrial areas, the further strain on inadequate infrastructure; roads, sewers, health services and schools, the damage to the environment through pollution and loss of habitat, the devaluation of property, the loss of identity as a village and finally because there is no guaranteed benefits to local residents.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to stop the proposed developments in the West Lancashire Local Plan by West Lancashire Borough Council.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P001155]

POLICING OF VIOLENCE AT HUNTS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Swayne.)

Chris Williamson: I secured this debate to highlight the antisocial and criminal behaviour of a tiny minority of individuals who cause havoc in the countryside. These rural ruffians are blood sports enthusiasts who have been getting away with this lawless behaviour for far too long. To my mind, they are no different from the mindless yobs that blight some of our urban housing estates, but the police, regrettably, are turning a blind eye to their lawless behaviour.
	I have been a trustee of the League Against Cruel Sports since 1979, and I was the press officer and then the chair of the Hunt Saboteurs Association 35 years ago, so I know from first-hand experience what these characters are capable of. I was regularly assaulted and threatened by hunt supporters, and I would like to give the House just one example of an incident that happened to me. Following a lengthy car chase, my vehicle was rammed by a supporter of the Quorn Hunt who was driving a Land Rover. Just a few minutes later, several other Quorn Hunt supporters used powerful catapults to fire steel ball-bearings at me. I was therefore delighted when Parliament struck a blow for decency by passing the Hunting Act 2004.

Simon Hart: The hon. Gentleman will have to forgive me—I am trying not to be facetious in asking the question, but would he at least declare to the House any criminal record or record of a similar nature that he obtained while being a hunt saboteur, because I think that is relevant to the debate?

Chris Williamson: I am pleased to confirm to the House that I had no criminal convictions when I was a hunt saboteur.

Simon Hart: Would it be fair to say that the hon. Gentleman was bound over to keep the peace for an incident involving inciting people, in the eyes of the law, to break the law when he was secretary of Derbyshire hunt saboteurs back in the 1970s, as reported in the Derby Telegraph?

Chris Williamson: For the record, I was bound over to keep the peace after taking part in a Radio Derby broadcast to outline a protest against grouse shooting. That is very different from what the hon. Gentleman is seeking to imply.
	The Bill that became the Hunting Act was long overdue. Public opinion overwhelmingly supported the ban and still does. Labour, Tory and Liberal Democrat voters support the ban; young and old citizens support the ban; male and female citizens support the ban; urban, suburban and rural dwellers all support the ban.

Angela Smith: Has not support for the ban increased since the Hunting Act was passed during the 2001 to 2005 Parliament?

Chris Williamson: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. People cannot understand why some Government Members want to bring back this barbaric activity. The overwhelming majority of the British people want blood sports to remain consigned to the dustbin of history. As my hon. Friend points out, the vast majority of the British public want the Hunting Act to be retained.
	The Act should have consigned hunting to the dustbin of history, yet such is the arrogance of some members of the hunting fraternity that they think they are above the law. However, they need to understand that nobody in this country is above the law—not even them. Organisations including the League Against Cruel Sports, Hunt Watch, Protect Our Wild Animals, the Hunt Saboteurs Association and the International Fund for Animal Welfare, along with many other conscientious individuals, have continued to monitor hunt activity. They all tell a consistent story: hunt violence and hunt havoc continue to blight the lives of ordinary people living in and visiting our beautiful countryside.
	I have been genuinely shocked by the evidence that has been passed to me about the behaviour of these common criminals. Antisocial behaviour, intimidation, harassment and even violence directed towards those monitoring their activities are all too commonplace. I could not believe that the violence and intimidation, which I witnessed in the 1970s, is even worse today. The disregard for the wider rural community is another feature of their selfish, arrogant behaviour, which includes road blocking; invading and damaging private property; rampaging hunting dogs killing livestock and beloved pets; causing road traffic accidents; and recklessly trespassing on railway lines.
	I am not suggesting that everyone who participates in hunting is an arrogant, violent thug. Indeed, I am sure that most hunt followers obey the law. However, worryingly, a significant minority are arrogant, violent thugs, which is why urgent action is needed to tackle this flagrant disregard for the law. Of course I understand that the police numbers have been reduced, but where the law is being routinely abused, the public must have confidence that the authorities will take action. That is why the Government must act to give the police the tools they need to do the job.
	Since I secured this debate, I have been inundated with examples of the lawless behaviour of sections of the hunting fraternity. The incidents are too numerous to list them all tonight, but I wish to give just a few examples to illustrate the kind of people and the sort of incidents I am talking about. In December, a hunt monitor reported to Okehampton police an assault that was captured on film. She was told to attend the police station with evidence of the assault, but, after reviewing the DVD, police officers told her that no offences had been committed. They said that there were just some driving issues that the offenders would be advised about, that any assault was part of a hunting issue and that she should not have been on the public footpath in the first place.
	Last summer, a south Pembrokeshire hunt supporter was jailed for three and a half years for firearms offences while at a hunt, after a hunt monitor was shot in the head by what transpired to be a modified single-shot handgun. The man also had a sawn-off shotgun and ammunition inside his van, and a further 16 guns were found in his home. In Devon, two separate home owners sold their houses and moved away from the area after
	being victimised by the local hunt. The hunt master of the Crawley and Horsham hunt, Kim Richardson, was recently filmed telling hunt monitors,
	“You’re all fair game now”.
	On 4 January 2012, a female hunt monitor was violently assaulted by a supporter from the Cottesmore fox hunt. The woman was on her own when she saw the hunt’s hounds illegally chasing a fox. When she intervened, she was thrown to the ground by a man who smashed her over the head with an aluminium bottle before pinning her down and pouring the bottle’s contents over her face.
	On 18 March 2012, supporters of the Ross Harriers hunt broke the window of a vehicle belonging to a monitor and attacked the monitors with an iron bar. One of the victims of the attack suffered injuries to the leg and head.

Simon Hart: rose—

Chris Williamson: On 25 March 2012, three hunt monitors were set upon by a group of 15 Coniston fox hunt supporters armed with sticks.

Simon Hart: Will the hon. Gentleman just give way on that point?

Chris Williamson: I have a lot to say and I want to make some more progress. If I have time, I will let the hon. Gentleman in towards the end.
	One of the monitors was left with welts on his back and a serious eye injury after the attackers tried to throw him down a ravine. An ambulance was called to treat him, but could not reach him after it was deliberately held up by vehicles belonging to hunt supporters, who hurled abuse at the paramedics.
	On 3 November, the Crawley and Horsham huntsman Nick Bycroft was filmed breaking the wing mirror of a moving vehicle and then trying to smash the window with his whip. However, the West Sussex police, who were on the scene, refused to take action. On Boxing day, five armed men from the Southdown and Eridge fox hunt attacked a solitary hunt monitor, beating him around the head and injuring his hands. Keys and equipment were stolen from the vehicle, yet the East Sussex police refused to visit the hunt meet to identify the culprits.
	Earlier this afternoon, I watched a short DVD produced by the International Fund for Animal Welfare, which illustrates the intimidation, theft and assault to which its monitors have been subjected. I have to say that I found the footage shocking.
	I also have evidence—a letter from Thames Valley police—of one particular hunt incident dating back to January 2011. It involved a Thames Valley police detective inspector who told a complainant that the case was
	“fundamentally flawed (principally due to the delay in time since the offences)”.
	Is an offence not an offence whenever it takes place? Is the passage of time a valid reason not to pursue?
	It is not just hunt monitors who are the victims of these militant blood sports fanatics. I also have recent examples of other types of antisocial behaviour where these rural ruffians have run amok. In Kent, a farm manager’s wife was pushed off a public footpath by
	horse riders who were galloping across a narrow area. She was pushed into a hedge after grabbing her pet dog to save him from being attacked. The Goathland and Staintondale hunts killed a pet cat. In Devon, a Staffordshire terrier was attacked by hunt hounds. In Yorkshire, recovering horses at a sanctuary were distressed by rioting hounds. The owner of the sanctuary subsequently received threats—incredibly—from a member of the hunt. A Surrey cattle farmer had his herd disturbed on a number of occasions, causing severe distress to many of the cattle. In Somerset, a sheep farmer complained of sheep being distressed by hunting hounds. In Gloucester, horses were distressed by trespassing hounds that killed a fox on private property. In north Cornwall, animals from a small holding were disturbed by rioting hounds.
	Those examples are just the tip of the iceberg. In what other part of society would that be acceptable? The simple answer is that it would not be. The irony is, of course, that none of this is necessary. If those recalcitrant hunt supporters and their unacceptable practices were not tolerated by the hunting fraternity’s hierarchy, those incidents would stop. By complying with the terms of the Hunting Act, all the transgressions I have outlined could be avoided.

Kerry McCarthy: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government rhetoric about the Hunting Act being flawed and not enforceable and the signals that they would like the hunting ban to be repealed sends the message to the police not to take such offences seriously when they ought to be doing exactly that?

Chris Williamson: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. Indeed, I shall come to that point towards the end of my speech.

Simon Hart: I respect the fact that the hon. Gentleman has given way. We could both stand here all evening making such comments. I have spent 20 years compiling a list of incidents of violence against legitimate country people and hunt supporters, particularly by members of the hunt saboteurs in balaclavas and all that. Will he accept two things? First, could he not at least seize this opportunity to apologise to all those people—women and children included—who have been on the receiving end of violence from the hunt saboteurs? Secondly, could he not recognise that in every instance that he has mentioned there is existing law to deal with the matters that he has brought to the attention of the House?

Chris Williamson: If anybody is owed an apology, it is the victims of the hunt violence that I have referred to. I regret the fact that the hon. Gentleman has not taken the opportunity, as a former chief executive of the Countryside Alliance, to offer that apology tonight.
	If the hunting fraternity complied with the terms of the Hunting Act, the hunt monitors, whom they seem so frightened of, would be welcomed because the hunts would not be doing anything unlawful. However, the Masters of Foxhounds Association and the Countryside Alliance have singularly failed to deal with the lawless behaviour in their midst.
	Will the Minister reassure me that he will issue an instruction to chief constables stating that the Hunting Act must be upheld? Will he also ensure that chief
	constables take steps to prevent hunt supporters from intimidating anyone who is lawfully monitoring hunting activities? Will he state for the record that, as far as this Government are concerned, no one is above the law? Does he agree that the mixed messages from senior Ministers could be misinterpreted by some people as tacit approval for breaking the law? Will he urge his senior colleagues, including the Prime Minister, to stop criticising the Hunting Act?

Damian Green: I congratulate the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) on securing this evening’s debate. It is not often in an Adjournment debate that the full emotions behind it are apparent, but they already have been this evening. The House will be aware of the strong emotions and feelings held on both sides of the debate.
	In the last few minutes of his speech the hon. Gentleman set me some challenges, so let me address them directly. Violence at hunts is unacceptable, whether that is violence towards those who are hunting or towards those who are protesting against hunts. As with any violent crime, I would expect the police to take appropriate action should violence occur at a hunt.
	The hon. Gentleman also said that he wanted me to direct chief constables to do certain things. I should point out to him as gently as I can that it is not for Ministers to tell chief constables how to do their job. One of the things that we most cherish about British policing is that the police are operationally independent, and when politicians try to direct police in detail as to how they should do their job, they enter very murky—

Chris Williamson: Does the Minister not feel it is appropriate, however, to issue guidance to the chief constables to make it clear that the Hunting Act 2004 is the law of the land and that police have an obligation to uphold the law—all laws?

Damian Green: I am not aware of a single police officer in this country who does not know that the Hunting Act is the law of the land. The hon. Gentleman is asking me to interfere in the operational decisions of the police. That I refuse to do, and any sensible Policing Minister—indeed, any Minister—would refuse to do that because that is not the way we do policing—

Chris Williamson: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I do not want to keep interrupting his flow, but surely he is not satisfied at the fact that hunts are regularly and flagrantly breaking the terms of the Hunting Act. That cannot be right, can it? It is the law of the land and surely the Government have an obligation to make sure that the law of the land is upheld.

Damian Green: Let me get to the facts. As my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) said, on both sides of the hunting debate it is possible for people to compile a list of grievances. That is what has happened.
	Let me turn to the question of policing at hunts very directly. There are over 325 registered hunts in England and Wales. Together they have carried out over 70,000 days’
	hunting since the Hunting Act came into force in 2005. From 2005 to 2011, the latest year for which official figures are available, a total of 332 individuals were prosecuted under the Hunting Act. Of these, 239 were found guilty.
	The Association of Chief Police Officers has issued guidance to forces on the enforcement of the Hunting Act. This guidance reinforces the general position that the deployment of police officers, including for enforcement of the Hunting Act, is an operational matter for the police force concerned. The police, of course, have an important duty to enforce the law, but this general duty to enforce the law is subject to the normal discretion of chief constables, who are required to balance resources and priorities. The Hunting Act is no exception to this principle. It is up to the police to decide what resources they use to enforce and prioritise the Act.
	The hon. Gentleman indicated that he thought the police were perhaps neglecting this because of the absence of sufficient resources. The Government have no choice but to deal with the deficit and that means that all public services must constrain their spending. Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary has made it clear that there is no simple link between officer numbers and crime levels, between numbers and the visibility of the police in the community, or between numbers and the quality of service provided.
	I hope that hon. Members in all parts of the House and on both sides of this passionate debate would welcome the fact that in the first two years of this Government, crime fell by 10%. On both measures of crime it is clearly falling and it is perfectly clear that the police, even with the constraints on resources, are able to do their job better than ever before. There is no argument to be made at all that resources are restricting the police from doing their basic job of cutting crime. That applies across the board.
	Let me turn to the right of protest, which the hon. Gentleman rightly mentioned. I agree with him that peaceful protest is a vital part of a democratic society.

Chris Williamson: The right to protest is not what I was talking about in relation to hunt monitors, who are engaged in a perfectly legal and lawful activity in monitoring the activities of the hunting fraternity, partly to make sure that they do not transgress the law. Indeed, evidence garnered by hunt monitors has led to numerous successful prosecutions. It is not about protest: it is about monitors being allowed to go about their lawful business.

Damian Green: Indeed. I have already, I hope, enlightened the House with the number of prosecutions. If the hon. Gentleman is arguing that hunts are not being properly policed, I simply point out that there have been 332 prosecutions and in 239 of those people were found guilty. Whether he regards monitors as protestors or as something else, it is clear that the police are doing their job, as is the rest of the criminal justice system, and people are being prosecuted successfully.
	The rights of monitors, protestors, or whatever we wish to call them need to be balanced with the rights of others to go about their business without fear of intimidation or of serious disruption to the community. The police have a responsibility to assess and manage
	this balance to ensure public protection and safety, and to engage with protestors, monitors and event organisers to enable peaceful activities to take place. It is clear that on either side of this debate none of these rights extends to violent or threatening behaviour. It is not acceptable for peaceful and law-abiding people to be attacked by others for expressing their views, and the police will and do act if that happens.
	The police have a range of powers available to deal with violent crime, whether at a hunt or elsewhere. Where a violent crime has been committed or alleged, or a complaint has been made to the police, it is the responsibility of the police to investigate and determine whether there are sufficient grounds to launch a criminal investigation. The hon. Gentleman gave a number of examples, in some of which the police had clearly looked at evidence and decided that a prosecution would not be successful. That is normal police activity; it is what the police do every day. They detect more crimes than end up in court because they may well, on looking at the evidence in any type of crime, decide that perhaps a crime has not been committed or that there is not enough evidence to—

Simon Hart: The Minister sensibly mentioned the issue of intimidation. Would he like to express a view about whether it is necessary for people involved in hunt monitoring or hunt protesting to wear paramilitary gear and balaclavas? Is not that in itself intimidatory? Could the police exercise the powers they already have to make sure that people who want to protest do so in a legitimate and non-confrontational way?

Damian Green: Violent or intimidatory behaviour will draw the attention of the police, from wherever it comes. As I have said several times, this is a passionate debate with very strongly held views on both sides. I am anxious that those views can continue to be expressed but that people stay within the law, and that intimidation and violence is kept out of this debate, as it should be kept out of all debates in a democracy.

Chris Williamson: For the sake of clarity and setting the record straight, I have seen evidence—I have it here on this DVD and I have seen other footage—of hunt supporters wearing the paramilitary uniforms and balaclavas that the hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) mentioned, being extremely intimidatory and, indeed, physically assaulting hunt monitors. I hope that the Minister and the hon. Gentleman would admonish those individuals as well.

Damian Green: I say to the hon. Gentleman what I have just said to my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire: I will condemn violence and intimidation wherever it comes from. We are all aware of how strongly felt the views are on this matter, but they should not lead to violence or intimidation.
	If the police have evidence of violence, intimidation or any other criminal activity, they will consult the Crown Prosecution Service, which will decide whether an offence reaches the threshold required for prosecution under the relevant legislation. The code for Crown prosecutors prohibits a prosecution from continuing if there is not a realistic prospect of conviction.
	Once criminal proceedings are brought in an individual case, it is for the courts alone to determine whether the police have acted correctly in enforcing the law and whether there is sufficient evidence to convict the defendant of the charges brought. Where a defendant is convicted, it is for the court to decide, within limits laid down in legislation, what sentence should be imposed, taking into account any aggravating or mitigating features of the case. That is a fundamental principle of our criminal justice system and no Government Minister has the power to influence the courts in the exercise of their judicial discretion—and a very good thing, too.
	On hunting more generally, this has been a highly contentious issue for many years, both in this House and among the general public. It has been brought home to me this evening, as it has on other occasions, that that remains the case. I know that the hon. Gentleman in particular is passionate about the issue, as is my hon. Friend. It is right and proper that Government and Parliament should reflect on this matter from time to time.
	I should make it clear that, while I appreciate that this is a sensitive issue that needs to be discussed from time to time, the Government are not proposing any immediate reform at this stage. We recognise the strong views held on both sides of the debate and—this point is important to the House—that it is an issue of personal conscience. Members of all parties in the House hold different views on the subject of hunting and it has traditionally, and rightly, been subject to a free vote in Parliament. I was a Member at the time of the Hunting Act and voted against it. My personal views are on the record. I should say as a declaration of non-interest that I have never been hunting in my life. Nevertheless, I voted against the Bill.
	The Conservative election manifesto promised that Parliament would be given the opportunity to repeal the Hunting Act on a free vote. There are many greater priorities facing the Government at the moment, but we plan to honour that commitment by tabling a motion on hunting at an appropriate time.

Chris Williamson: Will the Minister give way?

Damian Green: I will give way one last time.

Chris Williamson: I thank the Minister for giving way again. Does he agree that that commitment and the rhetoric of senior Ministers are, as I said in my speech, tantamount to tacit approval for those who are transgressing the Hunting Act to continue to do so? They may be misinterpreting them—I am sure that Ministers would not encourage people to break the law—but does the Minister not understand how the hunting fraternity might take that as tacit approval to break the Hunting Act?

Damian Green: No, absolutely not. Every party at every election makes promises to change the law. Nobody takes that as tacit approval to break the law. If they did, no party would, responsibly, ever promise to change the law at any election and, therefore, there would be no point in having elections or election manifestos. As I hope the House will have observed, I am trying to steer a course, but I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that I absolutely reject his interpretation of my party’s policy at the election.
	As I have said, the time is not appropriate and we are not prioritising reform of the Hunting Act at the moment, but the right to protest peacefully and within the law is one that this Government hold dearly. Violence against those who do or do not support hunting is unacceptable. I know that the police will take appropriate action to identify and prosecute the perpetrators of violent crime, using the range of powers at their disposal to deal with any violence or unlawful activity. That is what the police should be doing, that is what the police are doing and that is what they will continue to do.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.